the truth wrote:Hi, I'm new here. I don't know it this question has been already asked, but I'm not going to go through every post to find out if it has.
Are you satisfied with Underworld's explanation of how werewolves and vampires came in existence? Do you feel it has left something out or left something unexplored that even taking the explanation in its fictive value still rings as a joke to move the story along?
I liked both movies, don't get me wrong, but reading some of this posts man, there's some serious knowledge floating around.
Another question. Why would the werewolf bite be more plausable transmission for becoming a werewolf? Wouldn't the question come up again, who did the one who bit the latter become a werewolf?
Reading some of these posts has plagued my mind with these questions. ![Highly Confused ??](./images/smilies/HighlyConfused.gif)
Am I satisfied with thier explanation?
...I don't perticularly like it, but that is apparently how it happened in thier version, so it really doesn't matter if I am satisfied or not.
It was not intended to be the default explanation for the existance of all Werewolves and Vampires for all fictional stories from this day forward or anything like that.
Each Series of Fantasy and/or sci-fi fiction exists as it's own universe, and within each universe is it's own history and it's own set of rules.
No one can say that they got thier origin story "Right" or "Wrong", based upon the ideas, opinions and theories found around here.
The origin story of Werewolves is Different in the "Underworld" universe than in is in the "Darkstalkers" universe, which is different from "Freeborns" which is different from Scott Gardeners* unpulbished novels
(*A Member of our group here, in case you are new and did not know).
Underworlds explanation may not be my Favorite...but they Did provide an explanation for the purposes of thier story, which is more than most werewolf stories do.