THE PACK Message Boards

Vuldari wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:Which would you find more impressive, your typical, 3 inch long horse leech, or your 3 foot long Andean forest leech?

...Eagle or Ostrich?...

...Pro-Wrestler or Shaolin monk?...

...Aborigine warrior with a spear or a Scotsman on a horse?...

I dunno, I'm just babbling.

What kind of horse is the Scotsman on? Clydesdale or Arabian?

I don't know! Ahhhhhhh!!!! (flies off bridge into chasm)

Vuldari wrote: ...Eagle or Ostrich?...

While it's true that an eagle is capable of breaking bones, or tearing out eyes, the majority of eagle-related fatalities involved the eagle dislodging a potential intruder. On the other hand, eagles can not permantly cripple a man with a single kick like ostriches can...

...Pro-Wrestler or Shaolin monk?...

I'm not terribly impressed by either. Plus, I don't plan on picking a fight with either.

Would you say a Draft Horse is more impressive than an Arab?...Horse enthusiasts would beg to disagree.

I've only had experience with ponies, myself, so I like to think that I have no authority to make such a judgment.

It is not the size of a creature that makes it impressive, but what it does with the strength and abilities it has.
...
As A WW enthusiast, I disagree...

Perhaps I should reword myself...
As a conisseur of monsters, I find it terribly hard to be impressed by something that I can fit into my mouth.
I mean, unless it has superdeadly venom, sharp spines, fire-breath or death-ray vision, I don't levy much respect to something potentially edible.
And if any of you have seen me eat, I am making perfect sense.

You know what all of this 'back and forthing' reminds me of? Monty Python and the Holy Grail!!

....are you saying the coconuts migrated? It could have been carried by a swallow.... The size differential yadda yadda... on and on...

An African or a European swallow? AAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!

Apokryltaros, feel free to talk about your novels. As Brownrigg said, this is a forum. There are others who discussed their work off and on from the beginning on these boards and we’ve all enjoyed their comments. Is it any surprise that a fan would want to do something in their field of expertise? So don’t feel bad about it.

This was STARTED as a forum for to tell us what we wanted on our movie. Isn’t it nice that it has evolved into more?

As for size, I agree with Scott Gardner (I’m sending down a rescue helicopter man, hang on). It can get too far gone. As for the Eagle comments — the Kestrel hawk is not much bigger than a robin..it’s pretty much the same size. But it takes down prey three times its size. Right in the air. And a rabid Chihuahua will care you more than a calm German Shepard (heck, Chihuahuas scare me anyway.) My point being that the size isn’t always what’s scary. Now I say that, but a German Shepard sized rabid Chihuahua would be really scary!

Now that didn't help much, did it?

Silver wrote:Now that didn't help much, did it?

Thats where these come in.------>

Silver wrote:Now that didn't help much, did it?

I dunno...
Which would be more frightening, a giant rabid chihuahua, or a rabid German Shepherd?

Apokryltaros wrote:Which would be more frightening, a giant rabid chihuahua, or a rabid German Shepherd?

If they are the same general size...Definately the Chihuahua.

"No quiero Taco Bell...No Quiero Taco Bell !...AAAhhhhhhhhh!!!"

Vuldari wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:Which would be more frightening, a giant rabid chihuahua, or a rabid German Shepherd?

If they are the same general size...Definately the Chihuahua.

"No quiero Taco Bell...No Quiero Taco Bell !...AAAhhhhhhhhh!!!"

Well, chihuahuas were originally bred to be eaten...
Then again, chow-chows were also bred to be eaten, too...
And since chow-chows are larger than chihuahuas...
Well...

All other factors being equal, size does intimidate. But, things are not always equal. Size is simply one way to make something intimidating. But, like with my spider example, big size differences can alter what sort of thing one is. A toy dog can be vicious; heck, s*** (or Bleepzus if you're a Republican TV executive) were first bred as guard dogs. But, a S***zu is not going to have the same effect as a doberman or rottweiler; I don't care what they say otherwise. Now, a S***zu that's thirty feet tall is going to send mobs of people running, until Godzilla shows up. But, a Godzilla-style monster is a different kind of threat than an angry dog, much like the difference between a spider and a SPOY-DA!

size? Its fear factor. You guys are looking at the wrong place. Humans are much bigger than spiders. Spiders sees us like "Godzilla." But humans can be afraid of spiders. (Arachnophobia) Why is that? We are so much bigger. All what we have to do is step on it and its dead.

A werewolf, no matter what size, can generate a fear factor. Now what would you do if a 4 foot werewolf comes at you with sharp claws and teeth? Laugh, or run for your life?

Figarou wrote: A werewolf, no matter what size, can generate a fear factor. Now what would you do if a 4 foot werewolf comes at you with sharp claws and teeth? Laugh, or run for your life?

I am now reminded of this one godawful B movie featuring monster midgets.

Apokryltaros wrote:

Figarou wrote: A werewolf, no matter what size, can generate a fear factor. Now what would you do if a 4 foot werewolf comes at you with sharp claws and teeth? Laugh, or run for your life?

I am now reminded of this one godawful B movie featuring monster midgets.

Never seen it. Don't plan on seeing it.

Figarou wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:

Figarou wrote: A werewolf, no matter what size, can generate a fear factor. Now what would you do if a 4 foot werewolf comes at you with sharp claws and teeth? Laugh, or run for your life?

I am now reminded of this one godawful B movie featuring monster midgets.

Never seen it. Don't plan on seeing it.

Praise be, then.
The only scary thing about that 4-foot tall werewolf was that the midget actually agreed to get into that costume.

I agree with the origional post. If there's one thing i hate about werewolf movies, it's... everything. How about a story where they aren't all viscious, bloodthirsty monsters? Think about it... wolves aren't evil, and most humans aren't ravenous murderers, either, so if you combined a wolf and a human, why would you assume the result to a mindless, arbitrairily violent fiend? Why does being a werewolf have to be a "curse"? I suppose it's based on old stereotypes of wolves and the fact that some will get a visceral thrill from the thought of losing control and tearing someone to ribbons, and that translates to a few ticket sales.

But it's silly -- like that scene in Van Helsing where the werewolf goes after his sister. I don't care how furry you get, you're not going to try to eat your sister. It's bad storytelling as well, because it makes the characters not in control of their destiny or actions. Werewolf characters should have to make choices about whether to use their talents for good or ill, just like normal people, but with the raised stakes that obviously come with fangs and claws. I'd like to see a werewolf who needs to find real solutions to his or her problems (which would not include uncontrollable bloodlust) rather than the deus ex machina of getting "cured".

Feral wrote:I agree with the origional post. If there's one thing i hate about werewolf movies, it's... everything. How about a story where they aren't all viscious, bloodthirsty monsters? Think about it... wolves aren't evil, and most humans aren't ravenous murderers, either, so if you combined a wolf and a human, why would you assume the result to a mindless, arbitrairily violent fiend?

True, wolves are not evil. But people can be evil.

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people.

If an evil person became a werewolf, then you have a big problem!!

I quite agree Feral.

You need to have the right mix.