THE PACK Message Boards

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.

I think this should go in the movies Catagory where there is an Underworld thread

http://calypso-blue.com/werewolf/viewto ... &start=425

the truth wrote: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?

Sure! Why not. It's as good an explanation as anything that I've heard of before. They should at least given some credit for trying to infuse some real life scientific explanations to things that are usually just chalked up to sorcery.

the truth wrote: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?

Huh? I don't get this question.

Satisfaction with werewolves as the guardian minions of vampires:

Uh, no.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg:

There's lots of ideas as to how the first lycanthrope virus came about--for those storylines that make it a virus, rather than something else. Some champion the idea of leaving it open-ended and unexplained. It's a lot more palatable to most than, say, saying it was genetically engineered by an advanced alien civilization trying to understand human superstition and deciding that combining humans' intellectual capabilities with the inherant psychic ability of wolves would bring about some great revelation about magic.

How Were's got their start...No, I'm not at all happy with the Underworld explanation...it's too deliberate.
How would a Werewolf come about? Werewolves, unless I'm dead wrong, are a Beneficial Human Mutation...and those are rare. Mutation in humans is not unusual, we're an unstable genome. Werewolves would represent a more survivable form of Humanity then Homo Sapiens Simiensis. They are handicapped by a low birth-rate and their parent species habit of Freaking out every time they see a Were'.
As to the Bite as the way the Mutation is spread...there is a more enjoyable way, but this has to be a PG-13 movie, not an X-rated one...altho' Ill bet that way would work, too.
Coming down to cases, the most likely way now in the 21st century for a Werewolf to "Were'" someone would be a Transfusion...and that would be as dramatic as watching bread rise...
Perhaps the Were's would have a Legend of a Shamaness and the North Wind Spirit (which is usually depicted as a Wolf)...or some Classical creation story.
Fact is: WE don't know for sure how WE got here.... Why should the Were's?

RedEye wrote: As to the Bite as the way the Mutation is spread...there is a more enjoyable way, but this has to be a PG-13 movie, not an X-rated one...altho' Ill bet that way would work, too.

Freeborn will be rated R, last I heard.

Why would it be rated R?

[/quote]

Anook wrote:Why would it be rated R?

[/quote]
Nakedness...

Prolly Gore, too, knowing werewolves...

Anyways, on topic, I'm not satistfied with Underworld's explanation. I'd rather Werewolves didn't start off as slaves to anything, especially not vampires.

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.

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.