THE PACK Message Boards

Herpscott wrote: 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.

Actually...that is incorrect. In Underworld, it was the other way around.

The oldest Werewolves (as seen in Underworld Evolution) were unable to controll their shifts at all, and could only go one way. They shifted to Gestalt/Monster form and stayed that way permanently.

...it was only the "modern" werewolves that learned to controll their shifts and could transform into humans again....and then back to wolf again. The leader of the werewolves in the first film (I forgot his name) was one of the first of the Second-Generation type of Lycan that could shift both ways...and being hundreds of years old, was likewise the most experienced with the extra abilities the new lycans possesed.

Apokryltaros wrote:

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.

ME? Hey, Jamie wrote it!

I'm not the one rolling in weird grass.

Vuldari wrote:

Herpscott wrote: 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.

Actually...that is incorrect. In Underworld, it was the other way around.

The oldest Werewolves (as seen in Underworld Evolution) were unable to controll their shifts at all, and could only go one way. They shifted to Gestalt/Monster form and stayed that way permanently.

...it was only the "modern" werewolves that learned to controll their shifts and could transform into humans again....and then back to wolf again. The leader of the werewolves in the first film (I forgot his name) was one of the first of the Second-Generation type of Lycan that could shift both ways...and being hundreds of years old, was likewise the most experienced with the extra abilities the new lycans possesed.

That's right - I was kinda basing my comments off of the first movie. I didn't really even think about the "history" from the most recent chapter. I guess I was just focused on the idea that Lucian, Raze, etc, were older and could choose when to shift. I think Lucian started as a Lycan that could not control it and would transform whenever the moon was full. In fact, that brings up some good points. Why was Lucian able to "evolve" and William unable to? I may have missed the explanation in "Evolution."

yeah dat's ra' !
but i thin dat ancient druids were able to shift into an animals !
hmmz shapeshifting I mean !

werewolf = half man , half wolf ! (wolf head on human body) !

Hmm... Be carefull what you say dude, people who believe in werewolves are most of the time silly/disturbed/wrong in the head/full of crap on forums because scientists haven't seen any of them.

i'm a good boy most of time, but ya don't kno me ! I believe in everything ! My country is very close to Romania and i kno many legends fo werewolfs !

p.s. In many legends druids have ability to transform their bodie's in many forms ! I go to eat now ! C'Ya late' !
Sorry fo my Eng. !

Humans with wolf heads...eh not in my head. They need tails of course nobody knows, if they do exist, what they look like. We might all be wrong.

ohhh i forgot the tails !
whuteve' ... wolf in humanoid form ... hmz sumthin' like dat !

LiL_Stenly wrote:i'm a good boy most of time, but ya don't kno me ! I believe in everything ! My country is very close to Romania and i kno many legends fo werewolfs !

p.s. In many legends druids have ability to transform their bodie's in many forms ! I go to eat now ! C'Ya late' !
Sorry fo my Eng. !

Sounds very interesting. And I don't mind your English, my English isn't always that good as well.

What's sad is that both of you write better than the vast majority of the native-speaking English-speakers I've encountered.

Forget the war, the schools need fixing NOW...

vrikasatma wrote:What's sad is that both of you write better than the vast majority of the native-speaking English-speakers I've encountered.

Forget the war, the schools need fixing NOW...

Off topic I know but I feel I must say something regarding this.

The schools are not necessarily broken. What IS happening is a drive for both parents (if the child is lucky enough to have both) to work all day. Materialism in the USA is the new religion! Turn on any music TV show and you'll see it. The point is, parents make all the difference and if they are not home and/or don't care about the education, then there is nothing a school (even a GREAT school) can do to teach that child. In California, we have the difficulty of non-native students from foreign countries that have required the schools to teach in their native language. This requires additional education for the teacher and then DOUBLE the amount of time to teach a lesson (explanations in two languages).

In summation, studies show that if the child has a very well defined parental structure and base, then they typically perform better on standardized tests and IQ assesments. And, if there is no support structure at home, a teacher can fill those shoes, but not if the teacher is teaching 40-50 students. There simply isn't enough time in the day to reach all of them.

Back on topic...

Everyone seems to agree that werewolves need tails, but has anyone thought that a tail might be unnecessary in a bipedal animal (provided your ideal WW is bipedal)? A tail's function is mainly for balance. I wonder what else would need to be in place or removed for a tail to be required for functionality rather than asthetics. For example, would the ww have to hunch forward some to counterbalance the weight of the tail? What about when it wags?

"Stand up tall, feet together." --Drill sargeant

"OK sir, just don't make me happy or make me laugh." --Werewolf

"Why not MAGGOT!!!" --Drill sargeant

[The sound of a stifled laugh from another in line]

Laughter is contagious and soon the tail begins to swish back and forth, knocking the poor werewolf to the floor.

Tails are used for more than just balance. They can be fly swatters (horses), warning signs (warthogs, white tailed deer), mate attractants (peacocks), and conveyers of body language (dogs, wolves).

I don't think a werewolf should have a huge tail (like a normal wolf) because I don't think a human tailbone can support that.

Herpscott wrote:I wonder what else would need to be in place or removed for a tail to be required for functionality rather than asthetics. For example, would the ww have to hunch forward some to counterbalance the weight of the tail? What about when it wags?

I wouldn't think so, I ran around with a heavy backpack for the past several days without having to hunch over, and the backpack was much larger, and farther from my center of gravity than a tail would be.

Morkulv wrote:I don't think a werewolf should have a huge tail (like a normal wolf) because I don't think a human tailbone can support that.

Just how heavy do you think a tail is?

Even what appeared to be a relatively Large tail couldn't be more than 3-5 lbs MAX, I'd guess.
(10-15 if it was Cutely/Comically Large)

Besides...it wouldn't be attatched to a "HUMAN" tailbone...but a "Werewolf" One.



...but before we get into an argument about whether or not a Werewolf should have a tail or not, or if each of us prefers it or not. (I know Morkluv would likely prefer it not exist at all...at least, I assume...), I would like to reiterate that I believe that Werewolves should be interpreted in MANY ways...some VERY wolflike with lupine heads unrecognisable as ever being human, and significantly sized tails...and some bearing resemblances to a "Wolf" only in name and reputation, bearing NO tails, and frighteningly human faces...but with BIG TEETH.

...or whatever...

I think stories about Werewolves that are "Wolves" by name only, but are different monsters completely, are exiting and interesting too...

...they just are not my favorite.



Back on Subject...as far as that "Yarn" monster thing...I don't care WHAT you call that...it will just be something that is NOT a werewolf that annoyingly chooses to call itself one.

The exact line between what IS and is NOT a werwolf is really hard to define...which is why this is a really good topic.

However, I prefer to just go on feeling. If I don't know that a character or creature is supposed to be a werewolf untill someone tells me that it is...then it is NOT a werewolf.

...if after reading about it in a story (without it being labeled, but merely desrcibed), or seeing a picture of it, I can confidently say, "that's a werewolf"...then it is.

What it comes down to is...you have to show me an example first, and then I'll tell you if I think it fits under the category "Werewolf" or not.

...I don't think I could set down a list of concrete rules, because I know if I did, someone would create something that technically meets all my criteria, but I don't beleive is a REAL werewolf at all, and someone else could make a character/creature that breaks one or more of my rules, but still feels like a TRUE werewolf to me anyway.

Vuldari wrote:

Morkulv wrote:I don't think a werewolf should have a huge tail (like a normal wolf) because I don't think a human tailbone can support that.

Just how heavy do you think a tail is?

Even what appeared to be a relatively Large tail couldn't be more than 3-5 lbs MAX, I'd guess.
(10-15 if it was Cutely/Comically Large)

Besides...it wouldn't be attatched to a "HUMAN" tailbone...but a "Werewolf" One.



...but before we get into an argument about whether or not a Werewolf should have a tail or not, or if each of us prefers it or not. (I know Morkluv would likely prefer it not exist at all...at least, I assume...), I would like to reiterate that I believe that Werewolves should be interpreted in MANY ways...some VERY wolflike with lupine heads unrecognisable as ever being human, and significantly sized tails...and some bearing resemblances to a "Wolf" only in name and reputation, bearing NO tails, and frighteningly human faces...but with BIG TEETH.

...or whatever...

Dude, did you ever see a tailbone of a human and a wolf or other canine in skeleton? The human tailbone is a lot smaller. And because human's aren't used of having a tail I think it cannot be as 'heavy' as a regular wolf-tail or something. I'm not saying it should be a small knot or something.

And what makes you think I don't like to see a tail?

Morkulv wrote:Dude, did you ever see a tailbone of a human and a wolf or other canine in skeleton? The human tailbone is a lot smaller. And because human's aren't used of having a tail I think it cannot be as 'heavy' as a regular wolf-tail or something. I'm not saying it should be a small knot or something.

And what makes you think I don't like to see a tail?

Yes, I know that a HUMAN pelvis and HUMAN tailbone is not built for that.

But that would only a problem if those bones did not transform WITH the addition of that appendage.

It seems to me that those kinds of internal changes would be the most certain to be modified by the transformation. It would only extend beyond the tailbone AFTER the persons body changes into one that is built to have that part there. I would find it far more likely and logical that a werewolf would shift the shape and state of it's pelvis and tailbone, even if it didn't actually grow a complete tail...than that it would grow a full-size tail from a stunted, unchanged tailbone. That woudn't make sense to me at all.


As for why I don't think you want to see the tail...

...you consistantly insist that you HATE when werewolves faces/heads look "Wolfish", prefering that thier faces and bodies are easily recognisable as thier human selves...because you don't like them to look too much like "Furries".

Well...of all the physical features that a werewolf could possibly posess (Fur, Fangs, Claws, Digitigrade feet, Pointy ears...) the "Furriest" part is Undeniably the TAIL.

...so...being as anti-furry as you are...it seemed logigal that you would be against the inclusion of a werwolf tail.


I appologise if I have made any incorrect assumptions.

Vuldari wrote: ...I don't think I could set down a list of concrete rules, because I know if I did, someone would create something that technically meets all my criteria, but I don't beleive is a REAL werewolf at all, and someone else could make a character/creature that breaks one or more of my rules, but still feels like a TRUE werewolf to me anyway.

I agree with you, but I do think there could be a set of rules that have to met for the creature to have a chance at being werewolf. What I mean is a set of criteria that if it does not meet, then it is isn't a werewolf, but if it does, then it may (based on further examination) be.

Syzygy wrote:

Vuldari wrote: ...I don't think I could set down a list of concrete rules, because I know if I did, someone would create something that technically meets all my criteria, but I don't beleive is a REAL werewolf at all, and someone else could make a character/creature that breaks one or more of my rules, but still feels like a TRUE werewolf to me anyway.

I agree with you, but I do think there could be a set of rules that have to met for the creature to have a chance at being werewolf. What I mean is a set of criteria that if it does not meet, then it is isn't a werewolf, but if it does, then it may (based on further examination) be.

A set of MINIMUM requirements needed for category "Consideration"?

Yeah...I could see that.


Like the Werewolves from Underworld:
Some feel that they just don't look enough like wolves to be considered WereWolves. However, they do;

*Change durring a Full Moon.

*Transmit the Shapeshifting ability (and all that goes with it) via a Bite.

*Howl.

*Are negatively effected by silver.

**...and, can trace thier origin to a bite from an actual WOLF (combined with a unique Human Mutation).


If there WAS a list of minimum criteria for TRUE Lycanthropy, I would say that this meets most or all of the requirements. Ultimately, however, it boils down to how people actually feel about, react to, and accept these unique characters that decides if they fit the bill or not.

Meeting these theroetical requirements merely earns the creatures an official "consideration"...but not a guaranteed stamp of approval.

(BTW: I Consider the UW Werewolves to be True 'Variant' werewolves. I accept them as such...but not as prime examples of the "Standard")



...is that what you meant?

Yes. You said it much better than I did.

Here's an idea: if you're any good at drawing, Morkulv, draw a picture of what you think a werewolf should look like and post it so we can see what you're talking about.

The following items are categorically not werewolves:

Dinnerware, including spoons, knives, forks, and accessory items
Light bulbs
Zha Zha Gabor
The Sunday, May 14th issue of The New York Times
A can of Bud Light
The magnolia tree outside my current house
My current house, on the market for $194,000
The new house I'll move into in Rockwall

And, I've managed to count so far some 12,654,826,461,377,801,963,352,742,523,756,322 other items that aren't werewolves, either. I can name some more if you'd like.