THE PACK Message Boards

No, we're not ruining werewolves. We're just adding some variety.

MattSullivan wrote:Here's what I hate about werewolves, or rather, how a certain segment of fans have interpreted them. The whole "indian" mythos. Y know...pics of werewolves dressed in Indian garb, playing the flute, getting all tribal talking to rocks and crap. These kinds of pics are drawn mostly by white people who ( I'm guessing ) only have a smidge of indian blood in them ( like myself ) and somehow pretend they're "native American" or they have an affinity for that sort of thing. Whatever ^-^

To me that sort of thing is...well...cheesy. I like the idea werewolves are normal people. Normal non indian people aren't any less noble than an indian ( oops. So sorry NATIVE AMERICAN......................NO....WAIT...i will not fall prey to this political correctness crap. INDIAN! ) Somewhere along the way regular old people became uninteresting to read or talk about, and the fascination with other cultures ( especially japan ) has taken over. FEH! I like all people. Not just one race or culture.

And while we're at it, I want my "stewardesses" back. not these so-called FLIGHT ATTENDANTS!

Actually, if such were the desire of the artist ( to present Were's in a "tribal" setting) they'd be better served to take a look at the very early(like pre-Roman) people of Europe for their image search.
The Werewolf is a European critter, not a Native American. A Were' with runes or ogham on a tree, playing a shrynx or double-flute, with Alder or Larch branches around would be much more accurate.
Also, a lot harder to sell to an American audience...unfortunately.

The most logical American Were' isn't the Wolf, although there are potentials for it. The most likely Wereform for this country is the Cougar, Puma, Catamount; Felis Concolor. Wolves in the Americas weren't big enough or spooky enough for the storytellers to cast them as magical shapeshifters, but the secretive Cougar was.
Go figure...
There weren't any big cats in Europe when the Werewolf legends began. They'd died off already. And in Europe, Lupus Asiaticus was the big bad for the people there, hence their incorporation into legends.

Still, for all that, I still like the imagry; it just isn't in this world, that's all.

So long as we understand that werewolf is a category, not a single creature, we're good. Shapeshifters who just happen to be wolves? Ok. Fuzzy serial killers? Ok. Anything goes, so long as you can justify it.

RedEye wrote:Actually, if such were the desire of the artist ( to present Were's in a "tribal" setting) they'd be better served to take a look at the very early(like pre-Roman) people of Europe for their image search.
The Werewolf is a European critter, not a Native American. A Were' with runes or ogham on a tree, playing a shrynx or double-flute, with Alder or Larch branches around would be much more accurate.
Also, a lot harder to sell to an American audience...unfortunately.

In other words, werewolves drawn in gaudy-brown celtic loincloths means the artist may be irish.

But Matt's right. I can't stress this enough, to see people drawing all these pseudo-tribal native american werewolves drive me up the wall. I see so many of them, i practically lost count of how many of them that i've come across.

More than one type of werewolf can exist in the same reality or dimension. You could have a cursed species of werewolves fighting another species of werewolves.

I like what Figarou said "What if werewolves were copyrighted?"

You can't ruin something by creating another thing. You need to recognize that the cursed werewolf species in "An American Werewolf in London" is not the same as the species in "Underworld" and neither of these species will be same as the one in "Freeborn."

This seems to have some sort of connection with Guilt by Association IMO.

As to Underworld, my opinion is still out on whether those were Werewolves or just Were-Uglyness. They were about as Un-Wolf-Like as you can get, and still be called Werewolf-ish.

Nevertheless, were I to encounter one in a crowded hallway, I'd let him have the right of way. It might rub off...

Aye caramba! if someone tried to copyright werewolves then artists everywhere would freak! it's bad enough that Paris "I'm-a-talentless-doorknob" Hilton copyrighted the phrase "That's hot"

WHAT? WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTT??????????????????

Whoa! Moving forward. We are not ruining the portrayals of Werewolves, like mostly everyone here says. We just improve it, adding something fresh, original, and new that is never been used before. Or making our own werewolf. Also, different tastes for werewolves. Hell! It can be furry, bloodthirsty motherfucking killers, Native American Werewolves, city dwelling werewolves, fantasy werewolves as a race, etc, etc. Everyone has their own tastes, varieties and opinions about them. Which is why makes them very unique!

Hey guys, don't even forget about White Wolf Inc. World of Darkness Story RPG and franchise.

http://white-wolf.com/

Old series
Vampire: The Masquerade
Werewolf: The Apocalypse

New series
Vampire: The Requiem
Werewolf: The Forsaken

I don't have the RPG hardcover book, but I do have their comics published by Moonstone.

We are not ruining the portrayals of Werewolves, like mostly everyone here says. We just improve it, adding something fresh, original, and new that is never been used before. Or making our own werewolf. Also, different tastes for werewolves. Hell! It can be furry, bloodthirsty motherfucking killers, Native American Werewolves, city dwelling werewolves, fantasy werewolves as a race, etc, etc. Everyone has their own tastes, varieties and opinions about them. Which is why makes them very unique!

User-created depictions/portrayals i can believe, but the improving part i find harder to believe with the literature i've found thus far. :/

Like Kalindo, for example. Good base of concept, but the way it was described almost rivalled Count Dante/Ashida Kim/Frank Dux/some other bullshido, and i've yet to find the meaning of the name alone since technically it's supposed to be according to the sanskrit language, and the Stargazer tribe are of (sic) "hindu descent".

Then again, tribal adornments are the pop/rap music of werefandom art. Anything other than that is underground music.

Regarding Celtic and/or Native American werewolves, that makes sense to me because, as shapeshifters, and as "monsters" shunned by Christianity, I think werewolves would be more inclined towards faiths and nationalities that had a strong emphasis on nature like Celtic druidism or Native American spiritualism. After all, just because someone prefers a certain style of dress does not necessarily mean they are of that nationality, right? You don't have to be Japanese to like anime, do you? And besides, how is a dreamcatcher stranger than all the pentacles or Satan paraphernalia we used to see?

Back on topic though, the only way the Pack could "ruin werewolves" would be by making Freeborn so good it inspires a lot of low-talent writers to copy the Freeborn style werewolves. It wasn't Ann Rice that destroyed vampires -- it was all the people that copied Ann Rice word for word.

So are we destroying werewolves? No. If the end result of all our debate absolutely sucks, it won't have any lasting results.

okay who is Anne Rice, and what did she do to vampires? I mean, in my opinion, I think we aren't destroying the both spiritual and actual werewolves. I think we are worshipping them and are making them grow even stronger.

Fyriewolf wrote:okay who is Anne Rice

thanks. I had found out. Man is she a bit rude

And I had found something different about her. She may be rude, (in my opinion), but then again she believes that we actually exist.

Ruining werewolves?
At first, i was attracted by the power they had, but, after seeing werewolves in a more softer tone, {Goldenwolf's artwork, for example} i found i liked the beauty of the creature far more than i liked the idea of a monster. The idea that all werewolves would be cast out, would be turned into freaks by the public if they showed themselves, or, were just evil creatures, turns me off to the idea of them. I like the idea that a werewolf can be powerful, but that they also can be gentle creatures when they're not trying to survive. I like that idea far more than a blood thirsty monster. Besides, there are more Vampire books than Ann Rice's. Why can't there be more differing ideas about werewolves?

WerewolfKeeper3 wrote:Ruining werewolves?
At first, i was attracted by the power they had, but, after seeing werewolves in a more softer tone, {Goldenwolf's artwork, for example} i found i liked the beauty of the creature far more than i liked the idea of a monster. The idea that all werewolves would be cast out, would be turned into freaks by the public if they showed themselves, or, were just evil creatures, turns me off to the idea of them. I like the idea that a werewolf can be powerful, but that they also can be gentle creatures when they're not trying to survive. I like that idea far more than a blood thirsty monster. Besides, there are more Vampire books than Ann Rice's. Why can't there be more differing ideas about werewolves?

I agree. I doubt any amount of "reimagining" on our parts, or the parts of a few authors or movie producers, is going to hurt the image of what most people think of when they hear the word "werewolf". The whole "WE'RE DESTROYING THE ESSENCE OF WHAT A WEREWOLF IS!!!" panic reminds me of what I heard went on when the telephone was first introduced. People were saying "Oh no!! Noone will ever go out and interact with other people anymore, they'll just talk to each other on the phone and never in person." And that sure didn't happen. Heck...you don't see all the Barnes & Nobles and libraries closing down now that people can just download an E-book do you? The introduction of a new & different version of something doesn't mean that the older version is going to vanish (unless you're talking about vinyl records or Betamax). The idea of a werewolf as something other than a blood drooling, flesh devouring man eater is (from what I can tell) still fairly new when compared to the "traditional" image of a werewolf. I think they can both get along just fine without there having to be a "one or the other" thing going on. The only thing I think is kinda wierd (and just a tad funny as well), is that we have people here that have said (repeatedly), "I'm sick of seeing the werewolf as just an evil monster!!" "Show us a werewolf as a hero!!" And then as soon as a werewolf protagonist shows up in a story, what happens? "Oh no!! Noble heroic werewolves that don't slaughter children?!? But that will destroy the historical essence of the werewolf as a terrifying moster to be feared!!" Well....isn't that the image y'all said you wanted to get away from?

how can we ruin what many minds see differently? really not one single being thinks alike, the only way we could ruin it is that we had perposely done it just to make it ruined.

Ann Rice may believe that werewolves exist, but she tends to make things a little too risque. It pleases a certain crowd, but in a dorky way it creates a cliche that is almost stomach turning. "The undead are oversexed"
Look at her other works. She actually wrote a book about a castrated man who was sexually active with other men. Her stuff is porn for bookworms. Imagine what she would do to werewolves if she got a hold of one.

It gets bad when people give werewolves mental powers, oversize body parts, the height of a two story house and strength that matches superman. I don't think Freeborn is doing that. There are some that have come and gone that have given into that stuff as entertaining, but there are those of us who actually have good taste and they populate this forum more than the weirdos with bad taste.

Are we destroying the image of werewolves? There have been people that have come around that are worse than us.

Yes, I believe iconoclasm is at work here, but in a positive way.

Has the vampire legend been "ruined" by Buffy, Interview With A Vampire, and Blade? Perhaps, in that vampires have become mundane, their conventions explained away by science, their presence ubiquitous, their mystery gone. Fear of the night is fear of the unknown. The vampire had dignity; Dracula was both noble and horrifying, iconically envisioned from Bela Lugosi to Gary Oldman. Now, vampires fail to move the public, either through myth, screen, or literary representation.

However, the opposite scenario seems to be occurring with the werewolf. There was no iconic werewolf legend in the public eye, no Dracula to stir imaginations at large. Lon Chaney's representation is a fading memory, a relic of pulp fiction from the golden age of pictures. Even through the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the werewolf tale was an uninspiring one, mired in the conventions of grind house horror; it had very little mythic quality even before White Wolf and Susan Krinard got ahold of it. The OP's original presumption is that the masses like the werewolf to begin with; I see no evidence for that at all, at least not with any appreciable significance. Even zombies have more dignity.

What Freeborn and The Pack could succeed in doing, is to inject life into a "B" myth. Wipe away the whiff of mundane serial schlock to recreate a legend, restore a sense of esoterism, establish a myth that can move the public. Certain conventions are shackles that are begging to be cut. Take the werewolf legend and raise it up. That's iconoclasm. (It may also be wishful thinking.) So no, I don't believe the werewolf is being "ruined" here at all... only the opposite.

IMHO, I think that a werewolf should have that primal instinct in their mind at all times; it doesn't always have to show up, but it must be present within the mind of a werewolf. After all, they are part animal. But the other part of a werewolf (the human part) must be there too. That is what creates diversity between characters. Depending on what the original human was like, that should show up (balanced with instinct) in the wolf form. If you've got a courageous hero, you've got the noble wolf who saves the day. Evil villain, savage beast. "Misunderstood furry/therian/goth/whatever", "misunderstood wolf". It's finding the right combinations of these characters that makes a good story (I personally don't advise using that last one). Not to say these traits are permanent; characters must change over time, otherwise they seem flat and unrealistic. I think that the most interesting character, regardless of inherent characteristics, is one that learns something (good or bad) and changes their ways (hopefully for the better).

I think Freeborn will be interesting, just because of the different spin it's putting on the genre. Even if it's not successful, if the characters are diverse, the plot is strong, there's an intensive conflict, and there is change within the characters, then the movie will have not been made in vain. My favorite stories are the ones that are different from anything I've seen before; they're interesting because they're different. I think Freeborn covers all that, and it should be really great (and successful!).

I'm not saying we should do something radically different; I find that if we incorporate things already done before, then more people can relate to it better in many different ways. But if we stick to the same formula (whatever that may be), then nothing will change. Go that extra mile, be different, and be unique! That's the best way to get noticed.

Just pitching in my opinion, but I think I covered a lot of it. Do you think I was analyzing it too much from a literary perspective? I think I did.

Berserker wrote:Yes, I believe iconoclasm is at work here, but in a positive way.

Has the vampire legend been "ruined" by Buffy, Interview With A Vampire, and Blade? Perhaps, in that vampires have become mundane, their conventions explained away by science, their presence ubiquitous, their mystery gone. Fear of the night is fear of the unknown. The vampire had dignity; Dracula was both noble and horrifying, iconically envisioned from Bela Lugosi to Gary Oldman. Now, vampires fail to move the public, either through myth, screen, or literary representation.

However, the opposite scenario seems to be occurring with the werewolf. There was no iconic werewolf legend in the public eye, no Dracula to stir imaginations at large. Lon Chaney's representation is a fading memory, a relic of pulp fiction from the golden age of pictures. Even through the 60s, 70s, and 80s, the werewolf tale was an uninspiring one, mired in the conventions of grind house horror; it had very little mythic quality even before White Wolf and Susan Krinard got ahold of it. The OP's original presumption is that the masses like the werewolf to begin with; I see no evidence for that at all, at least not with any appreciable significance. Even zombies have more dignity.

What Freeborn and The Pack could succeed in doing, is to inject life into a "B" myth. Wipe away the whiff of mundane serial schlock to recreate a legend, restore a sense of esoterism, establish a myth that can move the public. Certain conventions are shackles that are begging to be cut. Take the werewolf legend and raise it up. That's iconoclasm. (It may also be wishful thinking.) So no, I don't believe the werewolf is being "ruined" here at all... only the opposite.

DAMN!! Well put!!

I didn't read all the replies, but I'd say it's certainly possible that *some people* will think we are "ruining" (their idea of) werewolves. If someone thinks werewolves should be crazed ravenous killers, then clearly they might not enjoy the Pack's interpretation of what werewolves may be like.

But, who is to say what werewolves are REALLY like? No one. We aren't really "ruining" anything because we aren't stopping anyone else from coming to their own interpretations of werewolves. Who cares if they don't like the version of werewolves that most of us here like? Screw 'em. We're entitled to come up with something new and fresh that makes us happy. I NEVER liked the idea of werewolves being ravenous savages, even before I found this website. And I doubt that Freeborn will stop people from making movies or writing stories where the werewolves are completely different.

RedEye wrote:As to Underworld, my opinion is still out on whether those were Werewolves or just Were-Uglyness. They were about as Un-Wolf-Like as you can get, and still be called Werewolf-ish.

Nevertheless, were I to encounter one in a crowded hallway, I'd let him have the right of way. It might rub off...

those are a good example they werent even based off wolves the based them more off large cats

LARGE CATS? Man I thought they had based them off an old prehistoric ancesstors.

ancestors of really nasty looking cats.