THE PACK Message Boards

werewolf-woman wrote:

Meeper wrote:

werewolf-woman wrote:*snip*

The post was deleted for a reason, I'm tired, werewolf-woman.

The Meeper.

when i was typing my reply the quote was not deleted, after i posted i saw it was gone but i thought you brought up an interesting point and was happy to have a discussion on your ideologies on form. If you would like me to delete my post so your deleted comment is gone, i have no problem doing so.

I thought it sucked, just leave it, I've made enough of a mess of this thread as it is.

My apologies GoldenWolf.

*bows out*

kitetsu wrote:

werewolf-woman wrote:@ kitetsu:
I really think calling a transformation gimmicky only bolsters my point that the monstrous werewolf is dismissed because it isn't pretty..
Beauty can be found in Analyzing the artistry in the creation of the monstrous werewolf. Good examples of what i find to be beautiful werewolf designs are the Comic Ferrals and Frazetta's wolfman. I just feel that the monstrous werewolf is too easily dismissed as nothing more than a drooling slimy monster but looking a little deeper may cause one to find the beauty in it.

My dismissal of "monstrous werewolves" is far less about a matter of beauty (though that's still a ridiculous issue I'm getting just as tired of), and more about the fact that I see no other symbolic meaning being conveyed by the portrayal of ogre-like things people insist are werewolves.

It's like being frustrated at token bimbos only having their sex appeal and their sex work being the only thing that defines them as characters.

i think the question about a beautiful werewolf is not a ridiculous issue, i think the debate has been rather fascinating and articulate.
You and i have a fundamental disagreement on the value of the monstrous werewolf and the symbolism behind the depiction of the "Ugly" werewolf.
I feel that the depiction of a monstrous werewolf can serve a multitude of purposes in a film, comic or book. I think the werewolf as a physical manifestation of the Id is still a relevant archetype. You may not like the monstrous werewolf but those of us who can see the beauty in the monstrous werewolf are not belligerent or unintelligent. Reducing the relevance of the monstrous werewolf and the transformation as nothing more than ugly gore, is a massive over simplification.
i think the monstrous werewolf is too easily dismissed, looking past the growling and drooling, i can appreciate the artistry and beauty in monstrous werewolf design.

Am I the only person who thought Project Metal Beast was an awesome take of a werewolf? It still looked like a werewolf, sure it had roughly bubble skin but the concept of a metallic werewolf with Terminator red eyes I find really interesting.

Art in all forms is subjective. When people try to apply rules to that subjectivity you get "schools", and there have been plenty of "schools" for art in the past. If you weren't part of one of these "schools" you art didn't sell, was derided, rejected, or laughed at.

This happened with writers as well as painters and such.

What we have here, very obvious to me at least, is two basic schools of werewolf design. They overlap in some areas, and in others are utterly alien from the other.

What I'd like to see is that overlap take precedence here. It's the compromise area were both schools of thought can find some satisfaction.

So what would the final compromise be?

My thought:
1) Monstrous transformation for the "young" werewolves (sans the slimy - sweat is okay, sweat-matted fur is okay, slime as if just born a bit much imo).
2) Fluid transformation for the "elder" werewolves. (This would set the 'survivor werewolves' apart - making them that much more frighting on a terror level).
3) Something in between for the "average" werewolf.
4) A more wolf-like hybrid (Gestalt) for most of the people, except for some who might be mentally "stuck" on the movie monster werewolf type. (This adds to the idea that the werewolves in this movie have some form of control over their shifts).
5.a) maybe werewolves that "go real bad" get really monstrous on the outside? Or they have more monstrous traits that might be subtle at first (ie totally hairless face, shorter snouts, short/no tails, etc).
5.b) or something in reverse?
5.c) Or have the younger werewolves who aren't more sure of their shapeshifting have a "less pretty" Gestalt form?

Frankly, he'res my take

A werewolf. A part man/ part wolf.

Beautiful or not?

Is a wolf beautiful? is it terrifying?
sometimes yes, sometimes no.

If its snarling and coming at you with fangs all blazing its gonna be pretty scary looking.
If its just standing in the moonlight not snarling or just sniffing the air or even playing its quite beautiful to look at.

So ultimately it not only depends on the wolf, but who it is as a human, and WHAT they're doing at the time.. keep it about the characters. They can be as scary or as beautiful as you make them.. having both options makes a werewolf a rounded 3d character.. no two werewolves are exactly alike after all, just like no two people are alike. Some are a**h*les, and some are benevolent. It's up to the script which is which.

Far as transformations the original gathering we did depicted thusly.

First time shifters, go all the way to wolf.. no choice.. no control, instincts are strong.. its messy, its hard.. it hurts.. the body isnt used to it, and it will take many shifts that are uncomfy until things get more controllable. in fact many wolves on their first shift dont suddenly go hunt as ravenous beasts.. the first thing they do is curl up and sleep.. its exhausting..

Like muscle memory, the longer and more moons that come, eventually the body gets used to it.. so much so, that over time your body learns the ins and outs of instincts, and the differences in controlling them, and triggers to bring on a shift, or to keep it from overtaking you.. so older more experienced werewolves CAN learn to control the shift, stop it half way "gestalt', shift outside the moon, keep from shifting 'during' the moon.. etc.... experience comes power.. skill.. more a part of you.. the curse becomes a blessing..

but because again all characters are different, not 'every' were sees it in the same way.. some always feel its a curse.. some never did..

As far as makeup.. the dowth will have the more 'fluid' shifts.. they were born were's.. its part of them... the first timers..ooh its not gonna be pretty the first few times.. it just isnt.

Bingo. Or ginkgo. It's hard to tell, because it was said in wolf form.

I think guns are beautiful and cool looking.

Unless one is pointed at me.

ABrownrigg wrote:I think guns are beautiful and cool looking.

Unless one is pointed at me.

I like the pink ones. http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/v/vspfile ... 5019-2.jpg

perhaps a special freeborn short where Jacks' pack finds a pink werepoodle.. put it as an easter egg on the DVD

Shadow Wulf wrote:

ABrownrigg wrote:I think guns are beautiful and cool looking.

Unless one is pointed at me.

I like the pink ones. http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/v/vspfile ... 5019-2.jpg

Keep this conversation up much longer and we'll be talking about fem-bots.

Meeper wrote:

Shadow Wulf wrote:

ABrownrigg wrote:I think guns are beautiful and cool looking.

Unless one is pointed at me.

I like the pink ones. http://www.airsoftatlanta.com/v/vspfile ... 5019-2.jpg

Keep this conversation up much longer and we'll be talking about fem-bots.

too late...

Beauty may be subjective, but as a general rule, we find beauty in forms that are symmetric and functional, and we find frightening forms that are asymmetric and convey disfunction or impairment of life as we know it. That's why so many horror monsters look deformed and have to walk funny, have no arms, have misplaced arms, are blind and hunt by smell, and so forth. Horror writers know this and work with these principles.

At some point a number of decades back, Dracula came along and transcended this. But, he was basically a human form with special abilities, a super-human villain billed as a monster but not with a monsterous form. Dracula became the point of reference that directed the evolution of vampire design through Anne Rice, The Lost Boys (which, admittedly, throws in a little deformed monsterr look, but not much), and finally Twilight. (Love it or hate it, it's now a part of the legacy of both vampires and werewolves in the general cultural subconscious. We can at least welcome that it gives more support for heroic werewolves that are still at least vaguely horror-linked.)

The role-playing games Vampire: The Masquerade and Werewolf: The Apocalypse were pretty influential in breaking into the mainstream the idea of werewolves as more than just monsterrs. Sure, The Howling had werewolf packs with psychological issues a decade earlier, and Vampire simply took existing archetypes and put them all together in the same world, politically at odds with each other. But, it was pretty big, and it happened right before the Internet helped get in motion the therianthropy movement, Otherkin, furries, and a vampire counterpart. Yes, there are a lot of people with deep longing for vampirism just as there are those of us here who identify with lycanthropy. No, we are not at war with each other, as we're both in different cabins of the same ship.

The idea of werewolves as something one wants to be is still pretty novel to the mainstream, though it is catching on. We may yet see symmetric and functional forms of werewolves gaining ground, and sooner or later someone will have to connect the dots. I prefer that final evolutionary jump that drives our visions into the mainstream comes from a source like Freeborn, as Harry Potter let us down even though they nailed everything else so beautifully in epic proportions, and Twilight kind of is doing the exact opposite. But, we're getting closer and closer.

yeah but we need more than one movie.
After a while most movies get dull, no matter how much we like them...
But... perhaps if this movie does well, and there's enough buzz about it... more people might actual make movies that use a Beautiful werewolf...

Getting ready for the film Prometheus, I watched the original Alien again the other night. It dawned on me that the iconic xenomorph chestbuster is a good example of something that is both beautiful and scary. It is so well loved a design that it spawned a pop culture sensation and a wave of spin-offs, including one by James Cameron that was actually pretty good. Granted, the thing was designed by H.R.Giger, one of the top premiere artists in the field of spooky phallic cybernetic landscaping. Most of the time, Hollywood's creature designers save money for explosions instead and just phone it in.

The xenomorph looks beautiful (that is, if you're not an average Joe too fixated on how slimy and not human it is, and also not a crew member of the Nostromos running frantically away from it) because it is symmetric and functional. It looks like it has good health and an excellent quality of life. It's scary, however, because it looks like it can and will bleep you over in so many ways. Even its life cycle counterpart, the facehugger, looks strangely beautiful, because it reminds us of real living creatures. (It's scary because the real living creatures it reminds us of are GIANT SPIDERS! That, and it's one purpose in life being to grab your face, knock you unconscious, and squirt alien monster eggs down your throat.)

So yes, here is a proof-of-concept example of a creature that is very beautiful in one of the most effective horror films of all time. Compare that to other creature films, and there's no comparison. Then again, it's probably not a fair comparison, because, well, Ridley Scott directing, Sigourney Weaver, H.R. Giger, and even frigging Jerry Goldsmith doing the soundtrack. But, you get the idea--beautiful monsters scare better than ugly ones, because pretatory creatures are more intimidating when it looks like they can actually win a fight.

I agree entirely Christy. I've always felt the same way, why doesn't a werewolf hold the beauty of a wolf as well as human? Funny thing is when I was on my quest of werewolf pictures as I often was I came across your work, and finally I found what I always saw in my heart, what I was looking for. And thus I've been a fan for years, because you portrayed what I felt a werewolf should be. I would love it if a movie had them done more in your style or similar at least, it's what I've been waiting for for years. Some movies came close but maybe someday it will look the way I've always dreamed.
I will say that I like the feral form look as well as the more anthro but for a werewolf movie I think the standard werewolf look you gave when comparing the body types would be best. I sadly cannot find the picture I speak of but I remember you calling the more anthro type a fur and you had a description of each.
Anyway I just hope the werewolves will finally get the majesty and beauty you portray in your work.
Take care
-OokamiAniyou

Sorry if i'm resurrecting a dead topic here but... I stumbled into this thread quite by accident, while searching ” werewolf images” on google. I felt compelled to sign up and ask if anyone had seen the movie ” Dog Soldiers” ? It an English movie where werewolves are the antagonists and not the main characters. These werewolves, IMO, best capture the ” beautiful werewolf” that was being discussed at the beginning of the thread (I have to confess that by the end of the thread the conversation had gotten away from me). Anyway, the werewolves are a little on the hairless side (as is the trend now a days) but from the neck up they are all wolf. The facial features are awesome. Definitely the beautiful majestic animal and then the snarling monster that you are looking for. Its a great flic. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

Goldenwolf wrote:This is not a Furry thing, nor is it about being a "Wolfaboo", this is about wanting something that returns us to the awe we should have for the world, for the magical, for the mysterious in life that leaves us tingling but a little bit terrified, for something that makes us long even harder for that which we cannot have, or be.

I can't say I think the werewolf is something that should be romanticized, but I will say this: For something to have earned the name "werewolf," it had to appear in such a way that immediately made all who saw it think "half man, half wolf." And not "half man, half rat" or "hairy slobbering gorilla-man."

I was expecting to go into this thread and say "A werewolf wouldn't be beautiful because s/he spends most of his time in human form (or at least they should), so the more time was spent on grooming while shifted, the more cause for concern it would raise among the rest of the pack." But I do believe in a "beautiful werewolf" in the sense of one looking like a seamless blending of man and wolf.

I agree absolutely about the mysterious, but I think the magical is part of the problem. Hollywood doesn't see the werewolf as anything more than a hokey relic from the Bella Lugosi era, so they refuse to take it seriously.

I think there's also been too much focus on answers, not just with werewolves, but with Hollywood monsters as a whole. Everybody feels compelled to try to explain it; to try to make everything sound sciency so they can try to look like they put some actual thought into these things, though doing so more often than not leads to the opposite effect.

So I say embrace the mystery before the magic. Magic can lead to the same lazy cop-out feeling that fake science can lead to, so I think the best thing one could do with the werewolf is create a pattern that seems to follow a logical behavioral pattern but that still defies conventional wisdom; something that seems ob the verge between the natural and supernatural, and to constantly tease with the possibility of both but never outright confirm either as being the case.

ABrownrigg wrote:
First time shifters, go all the way to wolf.. no choice.. no control, instincts are strong.. its messy, its hard.. it hurts.. the body isnt used to it, and it will take many shifts that are uncomfy until things get more controllable. in fact many wolves on their first shift dont suddenly go hunt as ravenous beasts.. the first thing they do is curl up and sleep.. its exhausting..

Like muscle memory, the longer and more moons that come, eventually the body gets used to it.. so much so, that over time your body learns the ins and outs of instincts, and the differences in controlling them, and triggers to bring on a shift, or to keep it from overtaking you.. so older more experienced werewolves CAN learn to control the shift, stop it half way "gestalt', shift outside the moon, keep from shifting 'during' the moon.. etc.... experience comes power.. skill.. more a part of you.. the curse becomes a blessing..

but because again all characters are different, not 'every' were sees it in the same way.. some always feel its a curse.. some never did..

As far as makeup.. the dowth will have the more 'fluid' shifts.. they were born were's.. its part of them... the first timers..ooh its not gonna be pretty the first few times.. it just isnt.

I wanted to respond with something along these lines but it seems like you outran me From my point of view a werewolf basically has the same personality as the the human it changes from. Of course, there ARE gonna be some 'animalistic' and 'wolf-like' traits all along, even if the werewolf is experienced. I believe it's just something that can't be avoided. Just like with real wolves, it doesn't matter how friendly or gentle they might be, if you tick them off their instincts kick in and you could really get hurt, even if the wolf is normally all nice and friendly. Basically the werewolf becomes a part of the human's personality, relies more on instinct and acts more like an animal on an occasion even once we get past the 'I'm-not-used-to-this-must-act-like-a-monster' part.

Having that said, this is the view on werewolves I prefer and consider the most natural and beautiful.

Terastas wrote:I agree absolutely about the mysterious, but I think the magical is part of the problem. Hollywood doesn't see the werewolf as anything more than a hokey relic from the Bella Lugosi era, so they refuse to take it seriously.

I think there's also been too much focus on answers, not just with werewolves, but with Hollywood monsters as a whole. Everybody feels compelled to try to explain it; to try to make everything sound sciency so they can try to look like they put some actual thought into these things, though doing so more often than not leads to the opposite effect.

So I say embrace the mystery before the magic. Magic can lead to the same lazy cop-out feeling that fake science can lead to, so I think the best thing one could do with the werewolf is create a pattern that seems to follow a logical behavioral pattern but that still defies conventional wisdom; something that seems ob the verge between the natural and supernatural, and to constantly tease with the possibility of both but never outright confirm either as being the case.

I'd take the statement to mean "magic" as in "mysterious wonder", not "I cast a spell". Not to get too far off on a tangent, but magic is supposed to exemplify the mystery and unknown. Spells (and curses and such) were tied up with the term magic because they were something shrouded in mystery and wonder -- spells were magic, but magic wasn't (exclusively) spells.

To embrace the mystery is to embrace the magic. Once you explain magic, it's no longer magic.

While not about "werewolves," the first book of "The Hunger Games" trilogy did have "wolf muttations" in an important scene. In the movie adapted from the book, it appears that the initial draft involved horrifying part-human, part-canine creatures. See
http://io9.com/5900417/the-hunger-games ... horrifying

In contrast, the version of "The Hunger Games" actually shown in movie theatres downgraded the wolf muttations to a CGI pack of dogs. While not beautiful, they also weren't particularly ugly. To me, they looked somewhat like large bulldogs.

Wolfston Krieger wrote:Sorry if i'm resurrecting a dead topic here but... I stumbled into this thread quite by accident, while searching ” werewolf images” on google. I felt compelled to sign up and ask if anyone had seen the movie ” Dog Soldiers” ? It an English movie where werewolves are the antagonists and not the main characters. These werewolves, IMO, best capture the ” beautiful werewolf” that was being discussed at the beginning of the thread (I have to confess that by the end of the thread the conversation had gotten away from me). Anyway, the werewolves are a little on the hairless side (as is the trend now a days) but from the neck up they are all wolf. The facial features are awesome. Definitely the beautiful majestic animal and then the snarling monster that you are looking for. Its a great flic. If you haven't seen it, check it out.

That was actually probably one of my favorite werewolf movies. And I agree, neck up they were beautiful and I always thought that if they did something like that but fixed the rest of the body anatomy wise, gave it fur and a tail it would be great.

I consider Dog Soldiers one of the best depictions of how I picture the look of werewolves. Bad Moon and the second season of the new Doctor Who are also up there.

Chris wrote:I'd take the statement to mean "magic" as in "mysterious wonder", not "I cast a spell". Not to get too far off on a tangent, but magic is supposed to exemplify the mystery and unknown. Spells (and curses and such) were tied up with the term magic because they were something shrouded in mystery and wonder -- spells were magic, but magic wasn't (exclusively) spells.

To embrace the mystery is to embrace the magic. Once you explain magic, it's no longer magic.

Ah. Well then I'd say the problem is that it too often gets taken as "I cast a spell." There are aspects that have been attached to the werewolf mythos over the years that really cannot be explained by any rational means; that have no explanation for them being there without conformation of the supernatural. And outright confirming the supernatural, I think, can be just as damaging to its believability as trying to outright deny it.

A little while back, there was some commotion about the discovery of bacteria that was thought to have arsenic instead of phosphorous in its DNA. The findings have since been discredited, but for a while, the news was that one of the very core laws of our present understanding of biology had just been proven wrong.

I mention that because I see lycanthropy in the same vein: As something that probably does have a perfectly logical explanation behind it, but that the discovery of would shake the established order from top to bottom.

I agree about explaining too much too quickly. At best, you kill the awe and mystery. At worst, you introduce premises that kill suspension of disbelief, by being corny or flat-out impossible.

I confess to using biology and science in my stories, but I don't spill the beans all at once, and I make my reveals generate new questions and mysteries. How does it work? Big reveal: It's a virus, but how did it evolve? It couldn't happen naturally, because of this, this, and this, and humans couldn't have engineered it. Aliens? Big reveal: lead female protagonist was genetically engineered by aliens. New question: why are these aliens making werewolves? What are they up to?

How much you reveal affects the flavor of the story. My explanation throws me into sci-fi, so I can shoot for an X-Files type approach, complete with government conspiracies and Men In Black. But, if you want a story that focuses more on werewolves per se, you want to avoid creating sub-story elements that direct attention elsewhere. For stories like Freeborn, the best approach may be "I have no idea why it works, but you're going to find out how it feels very soon!"

*nods* I haven't even gone that far; I don't have reveals at all. The werewolves (and vampires) have noticed patterns in the (for lack of a better word) virus's behavior, and based on those patterns, some of them have their own theories. But they don't actually know anything for a fact; everything is just speculation.

They know, for example, that lycanthropy is only transmittable by blood and that all other methods only produce infections because werewolves are prone to bleeding. They also know that werewolf blood starts to lose its infective potency pretty quickly, either because it was taken from the werewolf or because the werewolf is dead. So most theories, based on this which they already know, involve some kind of virus and/or bacterium that is incapable of surviving outside of the ideal body conditions and gradually evolved to bolster its host's immune system.

But they couldn't tell you with absolute certainty that this is the case. And the werewolves diverge substantially in their opinions as to how the wolf form could have possibly come from this.

It's my honest hope that, by keeping the werewolves as much in the dark as the audience, that it will generate some further level of empathy for the werewolves; that the audience will be able to relate to the same feelings of curiosity, confusion and/or apprehension that the characters are feeling, and that in turn will make them more likable (or at least believable).