THE PACK Message Boards

Oh, okay. Yeah, now that I can see the large version, I can tell it's just a photo edit. On the smaller version it kinda looked like a costume or maybe really good CGI or something. Even so, it still looks pretty cool.

Hey, maybe they'll use it in the next movie (I'm the eternal optimist).

Set wrote:

Morkulv wrote:Now I think that the tiger-guy (whatever his Japanese name is) looks a lot cooler with the rippage and pieces of cloth hanging from his shoulders.

I think you mean either Long or Shenlong. (I have Primal Fury, but only that, so I could be wrong.) And their names are Chinese, not Japanese. If you're thinking of someone else then...

I can't help you.

Yeah, you'r right. I remember now.

i find myself compelled to say that the best werewolf ive seen would have to be the ones on the movie american werewolf in paris..

Vuldari wrote:Just for the heck of it (unless Anthony asks me to remove them), here are the pics I'm talking about.

I remeber seeing that second one a looooong time ago and could never find it again.

Thanks.

White Paw wrote:i find myself compelled to say that the best werewolf ive seen would have to be the ones on the movie american werewolf in paris..

NO....PLEASE.!! Not the WEREMONKIES!!!!!

lupine wrote:

White Paw wrote:i find myself compelled to say that the best werewolf ive seen would have to be the ones on the movie american werewolf in paris..

NO....PLEASE.!! Not the WEREMONKIES!!!!!

WHAT...................They were cool looking...

White Paw wrote:

lupine wrote:

White Paw wrote:i find myself compelled to say that the best werewolf ive seen would have to be the ones on the movie american werewolf in paris..

NO....PLEASE.!! Not the WEREMONKIES!!!!!

WHAT...................They were cool looking...

Whoever did the shift in that movie need to be struck over the head with a anatomy book.

Quadrapeds =! multiple knee joints

THEY WERE INTERTAINING........ thats what made them cool looking

They did the job but weren't particularly WOLFY looking. Like the ones in Underworld, they looked like a cross between KING KONG AND A PITBULL, but they did they're job.

hey. Underworld werewolf fan right here.

yeah that was a right nice looking werewolf too....

Repsect, I own both films on DVD, I love both movies, despite some obvious flaws, AND I think that the werewolves in those movies were cool and evil looking and intimidating and all that but they didn't look very WOLFY. Thay just looked vicious.

I haven't seen the second one. Was it good?

I enjoyed it but I've heard a lot of people criticise it. People take films like this TOO seriously. you just gotta take your brain out, leave it by the bed and go sit in the lounge and be entertained.

The William werewolf was VERY cool

lupine wrote:Repsect, I own both films on DVD, I love both movies, despite some obvious flaws, AND I think that the werewolves in those movies were cool and evil looking and intimidating and all that but they didn't look very WOLFY. Thay just looked vicious.

Well that was the goal. The director didnt want them to look wolfish, he wanted a complete different design that no one has ever seen before, and he suceeded, as of now the underworld werewolves is the most popular werewolves around. I love the way they look, If can choose on whatever werewolf I want to be from films cartoons, comics or art. Im likely to choose the underworld werewolf or the van helsing, one or the other.

By the way I got my Underworld:Evolution DVD first day it came out: 6/6/06.

I got the first one on the first day too.

Don't get me wrong they are well designed and they do what they are meant to. but I personally go for the big grey brute at the start of Van Helsing, I know it has no tail but it just looks fantastic. One thing I would like to say tho, is that I've heard a lot of people criticise the Underworld werewolves for have not much hair. I think that is unjustified as they are, at the end of the day half man half wolf. We don't have a lot f hair so surely thats part of the trade off. I think less hair is more believable.

may be they were more real but i prefer the van helsing werewolves the first
and van helsing
they just need a tail an thats it

Cue Shadow Wulf!

Lupin wrote:Cue Shadow Wulf!

*makes entrance*

I dont understand why people criticisize so much about underworld werewolves unless something physical is wrong. "They dont have much hair", "They dont look like wolves", "it needs a tail" "they look like rats in a sewer". These are not suggestions or good criticism these are people simply saying how they themselves wanted and only themselves, nobody else. There are no mistakes made with them, thats exactly how they are meant to be, its exactly how the director wanted it. I dont like it when people keep telling others what to do with their imagination or how they should do it. You should never try to change a persons character design, you should help them to see whats wrong with it , for example

" that leg may be too long to run on all fours, perhaps you should shorten it a bit"

I said something similar to Lupin about one of hes drawings not too long ago, I didnt say "oh god lupin that character of yours is too skinny!! You got to pump some iron to make it look better" or "For cry sakes you have the ears all wrong thats not how a werewolf should be". Thats saying how someone wants it and nothing else.

Same thing with van helsing, I keep hearing "It needs a tail" Well mabey if it was your movie and your setting or its a fan based movie like freeborn, then you can have your tail. Tail will not make it look any better if anything it will make the werewolves in van helsing look kinda silly, seeing how they are suppose to be feroucus beast that everyone fears. People would take a werewolf less serously if it had a tail. Agien thats likely how the designers wanted it, I bet you anything that they seen artworks like goldenwolfs before but didnt want it to be that way. For the way the movie was set up, no the werewolves would not be any better with a tail or wolflike ears. It would make it worse in my oppinion.

If you payed attention to the rest of the monsters in Van Helsing, the designers added twists to all of thier looks: Frankensiten has green electricity showing in hes body and hes face pretty much comes apart, Dracula is a giant winged batlike beast with alot of teethes and a wierd hair, and her brides are pretty much like werebats aswell and they can extend thier jaws and stuff like that even when human form. Even Van Helsing had a twist with hes stick that turns into a crusaform, hes wingshot gun whatever and hes leather coat and hat, the orignal van helsing was an old guy with casual clothes. They all had a twist, so the werewolves twist is really pointy ears and huge bearing teethes and climbing walls(its magic). If you truly think about it werewolves in van helsing would truly stick out if one, it had normal wolf ears, two,normal wolf fangs, three had a tail cause then it would make it look too cute. The designers werent going for a natural wolf look.

And I remember someone saying that they wish that the underworld werewolves had a tail. Eww that would be rather disgusting, a naked tail. I actually got mad when the underworld werewolves had more hair around thier necks when I liked seeing those big thick necks of thiers.

So yes, please try not to say "it should have so and so" cause you have to look at the genre, the settings, the story, and how are all the other monsters and characters are like. The things you want or like wont always fit in with the movie. Remember ginger Snaps everyone? what if you replaced that werewolf with Goldenwolf's? How would that look in the movie?

*Bows and leaves the stage*.

*grabs Shadow Wulf and drags him back* Not quite yet. I wan to know what in hell prompted this statement:

People would take a werewolf less serously if it had a tail.

How do you figure that? I don't see how the addition (or lack) of a tail has any effect on how serious people take things. You don't suddenly become less scared of a pack of hungry, predatory animals just because they have tails.

Set wrote:*grabs Shadow Wulf and drags him back* Not quite yet. I wan to know what in hell prompted this statement:

People would take a werewolf less serously if it had a tail.

How do you figure that? I don't see how the addition (or lack) of a tail has any effect on how serious people take things. You don't suddenly become less scared of a pack of hungry, predatory animals just because they have tails.

I meant in the movie Van Helsing.

People would be scared of anything even roaches. Its in the movie so it dont matter to them. If you were to watch a werewolf scene in van helsing would you take it more serously if it had a big fluffy tail at the end. No. Well you might still will but to the general audience wont.

What does the tail do to make it "less serious"?

Also, define "fluffy" for me. A tail doesn't have to be poofy, nor does it have to be hairless.

Would i take these drongoes of werewolves seriously?



No.

kitetsu wrote:Would i take these drongoes of werewolves seriously?



No.

Ummm... Help me understand here Kitetsu. What is it about this picture that makes you say you wouldn't take them seriously? They look tough and vicious enough. They are ugly beasts with jaws that open too-wide, and foam at the mouth like rabid meatheads, and therefore not my favorite vision of the creature, but I fail to see a reason not to take such a creature seriously. They still seem far more scary and dangerous than silly or in any way insignificant.



...at least with the comments about the tail, I understood what Shadow Wulf was trying to say. A big hairy werewolf that went around wagging a huge fluffy tail might come off as a bit silly and detract from the fearsomeness of the beast if done carelessly.

However...the tail IS a symbol of the creatures InHuman-ness, and if applied subtly and appropriately (Wolves don't normally "Wag" thier tails at all.) I think it could effectively enhance the feeling of the creatures beastly presence. ...so long as it is not used or focused on excessively or inappropriately.

It shouldn't Stand Out. It should look and function of a natural extension of the body (you should almost not notice it), otherwise... as much as I hate to admit it...it really probobly doesn't belong there.

Vuldari wrote: Ummm... Help me understand here Kitetsu. What is it about this picture that makes you say you wouldn't take them seriously? They look tough and vicious enough. They are ugly beasts with jaws that open too-wide, and foam at the mouth like rabid meatheads, and therefore not my favorite vision of the creature, but I fail to see a reason not to take such a creature seriously. They still seem far more scary and dangerous than silly or in any way insignificant.

Sure. I'll rephrase.

In real life, if i met one of those... Things, i would tell them that they're ugly, they piss me off with that stupid vacant growl alone, and they need a f*** counsellor. I would take my anger on them and beat them to half death especially if they're the delusional type who can still understand english and pop culture. Of course i'd take them seriously.

In fiction, on the other hand, i would not take them bloody seriously. Not one bit. No.

And i was whining about the latter.


Clear now?