THE PACK Message Boards

Not to be a buzzkill, but I think some of the topics are being rehashed at a frightening rate. So i would put it to you this way:

I think a werewolf can be ANYTHING. There doesn't have to be rules, or limitations. it can be small, tall, fat, skinny, two-legged, four legged...whatever works for you! I personally think the more you guys talk about what it should be, you limit what it CAN be. Me, personally, would like to see a werewolf that surprises me. that makes my eyebrows arc and my brain think "Wow. That's DIFFFERENT"

Just my two cents.

Well and good, but are you saying that if I wanted a werewolf in one of my stories to be, say, a half man half chinchilla that loves kittens and despises church bells, that would be OK?

Not likely. I'm not saying you can't draw/write whatever you want, but a werewolf can only undergo so much creative license before it's no longer a werewolf.

What's taking place is that others are seeking to define werewolves for themselves (for their own stories, for their own works of art, and who knows what else). Unfortunately, some of them aren't searching to see what we've already said on a subject very effectively... but hey, it's kinda human nature.

You are complaining that stuff is being rehashed while your now in fact asking us to re-post the ultimate hollywoof-vision again.

I don't know, i think it's fun sometimes to go back to old topics to see if people have different views from a few months ago or whenever. but yeah, I see where you're coming from.. a wereowlf can be anything, and a werebeast can be anything as well

Terastas wrote:Well and good, but are you saying that if I wanted a werewolf in one of my stories to be, say, a half man half chinchilla that loves kittens and despises church bells, that would be OK?

Not likely. I'm not saying you can't draw/write whatever you want, but a werewolf can only undergo so much creative license before it's no longer a werewolf.

Exactly.

If I said there's a horde of zombies outside and you look outside and there's a horde of walking cacti who like to converse intelligently and have no desire to munch on your brains (or any bodily organ for that matter), and in fact much prefer a cup of tea, well, those aren't really zombies now are they?

Hell no. They're tea-drinking anthropomorphic cacti!

Making a familiar concept different isn't about totally taking the whole thing and re-writing it into something completely different. No. It's about taking a concept, a character type, a creature, whatever, and tweaking them ever so slightly. There's enough similarity that you recognize it, but when your scratch below the surface, it's something new and exciting.

Or, whatever.

Terastas is right, but Matt makes a valid point here: the idea of the werewolf encompasses a huge variety of concepts, so much so that it isn't really practical to say: A werewolf must be this, and must not be that; once the basics of the idea (at least some similarity to Homo sapiens, and at least some similarity to Canis lupus) are understood.

I know what my personal idea of the ultimate werewolf would be... I am absolutely certain that it would be the only such example of its kind in this forum and that there would be another thousand or so ultimate werewolves: one for each poster; and all differing from each other, in some cases extremely different.

What I really want to see in a film, or read in a story, is for the idea of the werewolf to be treated with respect. Get that right, and I don't mind so much if the creator's concept doesn't match with my ideas on the subject.

Midnight wrote:Terastas is right, but Matt makes a valid point here: the idea of the werewolf encompasses a huge variety of concepts, so much so that it isn't really practical to say: A werewolf must be this, and must not be that; once the basics of the idea (at least some similarity to Homo sapiens, and at least some similarity to Canis lupus) are understood.

*nods* I agree that we are permitted some creative license (and I'm sure you all remember the flame threads in which I stated such), but like Aki and I said, you can stretch things to a point where you'd be better off finding a new name for it instead, especially under the assumption that most people are already familiar with the concept of a werewolf.

Going back on Dark Stalkers as an example, I can't recall any pre-D.S. werewolves doing ninja kicks or turning into a freakin' comet like M. Bison from Street Fighter, but he has a distinct half-man half-wolf appearance that still makes him a werewolf. Felicia also has some animal features of her own and can shapeshift, so she likewise is easily identified as a werebeast, but since she has no canine features of any sort, calling her a werewolf would not be appropriate.

I support creative license (I've certainly put it to use in my writings), but there's a reason I've written fifty pages thus far but can still count how many times I've used the word "werewolf" on one hand. I don't believe anyone should say that a werewolf is "exactly this and nothing else," but you can only stretch things so far before your readers are no longer able to follow.

Since Werewolves are legendary and don't really exist; I'd like the IRS to be a Werewolf.

Terastas wrote:Going back on Dark Stalkers as an example, I can't recall any pre-D.S. werewolves doing ninja kicks or turning into a freakin' comet like M. Bison from Street Fighter, but he has a distinct half-man half-wolf appearance that still makes him a werewolf. Felicia also has some animal features of her own and can shapeshift, so she likewise is easily identified as a werebeast, but since she has no canine features of any sort, calling her a werewolf would not be appropriate.

[quote="Were Dono"]Like, for example. Did you know Felecia from Darkstalkers is actually a werecat?
[/quote]

Honestly, when someone says "werewolf" I tend to try to include all the other possibility's.
So...basically, I was looking at werebeasts as a whole, when this thread was opened.
Because, honestly, it's not just Werewolves that get this kind of...cliche...lack of ideas...Thing.

Werewolves are an example of something that is defined in a manner much like quantum mechanical probability--something that has enough criteria and fit the basic idea qualifies as a werewolf, whereas something else similar but lacking specific qualifiers doesn't.

The general consensus is that a werewolf shifts from a human form to something at least part wolf, if not completely wolf-like in form. This excludes, however, those who shapeshift into all kinds of other things as well (Odo from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, for example, or the T1000 from Terminator 2: Judgement Day, or Jonathan Chase from the short-lived TV series "Manimal") and generally implies that the shifting is done regularly, rather than just once.

But, what confuses the issue is that classical folklore describes a strikingly different werewolf from our modern one. (There are several legends of people turned into wolves by curses, and they were classified as werewolves.)

Full moons, silver bullets, tail or lack thereof, and eyebrows that meet--these are all elements that don't have to be there. They're part of the lore--old or contemporary debate aside--but not an essential component of the definition.

The problem is, we don't have a real-world example. (Therianthropy aside, and with it the school of thought that I myself qualify as a real-world example) We have real world cats and dogs, so their definition is unambiguous--at least until genetic engineering comes along or fantasy gets thrown into the mix. (Does Lion-O count as a cat?) We don't have a real-world literal werewolf. But, at this point, since we've confabulated so many conflicting hypothetical ones, even if a real lycanthrope did show up, I'm not sure the debate could be solved.

I'm just glad you didn't ask what a Furry was. That question has destroyed whole civilizations.

Were Dono wrote:I totally agree, MattSullivan.

A werebeast can be whatever.
Until there's actual proof about one, I say let your imagination run wild.

Like, for example. Did you know Felecia from Darkstalkers is actually a werecat?
http://www.armchairempire.com/images/fe ... alkers.jpg

No, ladies and gents, that's not just a "cat girl" that's a werebeast.
And you'll notice that she doesn't have a full body of hair.
And her transformation is actually to a regular cat.

Now that's somthin' different.

Felicia is a Bakeneko really with cat-girl elements.
(something unique to Japan which has caused every American based translation of her to not make any sense "looking at the short comic book series and kiddy cartoon") as they tried to make her something an American audience would be more familiar with (not sure why they didn't just keep with Bakeneko).


But on the topic, yeah everyone defines the werewolf for their own world.
I do the same thing, though in mine for the sake of my own conflicting thoughts I came up with a wide variety of different "strains" same deal with vampires and others.

But let the imagination run wild and just ignore all the previous rules with the only definition for werewolf being "man/wolf"
and we could get some freaky monsters that most wouldn't even recognize as werewolves but rather wolf monsters.

For example. a werewolf story I have had my eye on writing,
the person becomes a wolfman monster but it progresses to having demon wings, horns, and breaths fire.

funny, add just these three elements and we go from "werewolf" to "wolf-demon" heck just add horns or wings and instantly it looses the common status of werewolf.

It's because neither wolves nor humans have horns or wings, so by including either, it's implying that it's a hybrid of at least one more thing.

With all that, it basically is easier to call it "wolf-demon" as opposed to "fire-breathing horned werebat-wolf."

One thing I remember seeing from people awhile back - though I don't remember which thread - was that if a person was turned into a werewolf, but could not turn back (think Ginger Snaps), it did not count as a werewolf. This is something I disagree with, because such a possibility did not conflict with the term itself. It would not be the same thing as other possibilities, but I never could figure out why it was supposed to be wrong when most ideas are much different than the original meaning anyway. It seems to me that if there's a man, a wolf (or wolf-looking thing), and a physical transformation between the two somewhere, it's a werewolf.

But Rhuen's wolf-demon does go against the term, so it would not be. Not after awhile, anyway.

Speaking of different concepts for mythical creatures, i had a concept for mer-people in which their lower quarters were more like those of seals than those of fish and that they were kind of a genetic variation on the real life genetic disorder of mermaid syndrome. Sound interesting?

Mix that idea up with some of the folklore about selkies and you could go somewhere quite interesting indeed...

ravaged_warrior wrote:One thing I remember seeing from people awhile back - though I don't remember which thread - was that if a person was turned into a werewolf, but could not turn back (think Ginger Snaps), it did not count as a werewolf. This is something I disagree with, because such a possibility did not conflict with the term itself. It would not be the same thing as other possibilities, but I never could figure out why it was supposed to be wrong when most ideas are much different than the original meaning anyway. It seems to me that if there's a man, a wolf (or wolf-looking thing), and a physical transformation between the two somewhere, it's a werewolf.

But Rhuen's wolf-demon does go against the term, so it would not be. Not after awhile, anyway.

What would most people call a being that was once a human that permanently gets turned into a self-aware Werewolf with their personality intact?

If werewolves could be anything, I'd make them crayons. Then eat one and become a crayon I guess. FEAR MY WAXYNESS!

Ahem... I'm pretty much siding with "you can only change a werewolf so much before it's not a werewolf anymore." ...But crayons don't transform and eat people. Atleast, they don't yet. WAhaha.... .... ... lolz.

Dreamer wrote:Speaking of different concepts for mythical creatures, i had a concept for mer-people in which their lower quarters were more like those of seals than those of fish and that they were kind of a genetic variation on the real life genetic disorder of mermaid syndrome. Sound interesting?

Well, I didn't quite understand the last half about mermaid syndrome, but going on what I said in the Other Werecreatures thread about balancing fantasy with believability, changing mermen from being human/fish to human/seal would actually be adding realism. It would also still be fairly true to the original legends because it's not changing the form of the merman, just offering a closer look.

Didn't read the whole thread, but I think I agree with Terastas and Aki.



My thoughts:

"Were" means "man"
"Wolf" means "wolf"

Therefore, werewolf quite literally translates to: "manwolf". In order for something to pass as a werewolf, it has to be a creature/being that could conceivably have the name "manwolf", with that name actually making sense. This includes many MANY things (from very hairy humans to giant wolf like creature with roughly humanoid bodies who walk on two legs to humans who transform into wolves and stay that way, and many more creatures that somehow incorporate humanity and wolves)--but if you take away the "wolfiness" of a creature, then it's hardly a werewolf anymore. It can still be a cool creature, just don't call it a werewolf. You can't make a 6 legged rabid donkey and call it a werewolf. You can't make a giant fluffy bunny with pink hearts coming out it's a** and call it a werewolf. Well, legally, you can, but if you respect werewolves at all, you wouldn't.

Xiroteus wrote:

ravaged_warrior wrote:One thing I remember seeing from people awhile back - though I don't remember which thread - was that if a person was turned into a werewolf, but could not turn back (think Ginger Snaps), it did not count as a werewolf. This is something I disagree with, because such a possibility did not conflict with the term itself. It would not be the same thing as other possibilities, but I never could figure out why it was supposed to be wrong when most ideas are much different than the original meaning anyway. It seems to me that if there's a man, a wolf (or wolf-looking thing), and a physical transformation between the two somewhere, it's a werewolf.

But Rhuen's wolf-demon does go against the term, so it would not be. Not after awhile, anyway.

What would most people call a being that was once a human that permanently gets turned into a self-aware Werewolf with their personality intact?

How about Lupan? Lupus + Human. Probably what most werewolves would be, by the way.
And...a fire-breathing Werewolf-oid would have one eensy teensy problem: Fur's flammable. They'd set themselves on fire. Oops...

I agree with matt and terestas.Id say whenever a ww transforms it can push itself through the transformation and decide what it would look like.But there are limits like possibly the only changes you can do are tail or no tail or 2 legs or 4 legs or both or what color fur.