THE PACK Message Boards

Vuldari wrote:

Renorei wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote: I vote Mr Brownrigg, and we get Roland Kickinger as his stunt double.

I really really really love the way you think. It's so refreshing to know that I'm not the only person who understands why it makes perfect sense to throw realism out the window, when it comes to something as unrealistic as werewolves.

http://www.calypso-blue.com/werewolf/vi ... 8506#88506

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but it seems as if you're trying to suggest that I'm being contradictory. While I understand where Morkulv is coming from, and recognize that his views are valid, that certainly doesn't mean I agree with him. My post in response to Morkulv was a "I see where you are coming from" kind of post, though I still disagree. My personal opinion still remains that, attempting to maintain any kind of realism with something as magical as werewolves is just silly.

If you're all going to keep talking like that, I'm going to consider raising the size threshold from Clydesdale to white rhinoceros.

Apokryltaros wrote:If you're all going to keep talking like that, I'm going to consider raising the size threshold from Clydesdale to white rhinoceros.

All that would do is make it lose height and gain girth. The Clydesdale is the taller of the animals.

Set wrote:

Apokryltaros wrote:If you're all going to keep talking like that, I'm going to consider raising the size threshold from Clydesdale to white rhinoceros.

All that would do is make it lose height and gain girth. The Clydesdale is the taller of the animals.

A Clydesdale with the mass of a white rhino, then.

Renorei

Actually, I didn't even realise that you were part of both conversations. It was simply that I had just finished on that train of thought, saw the oposite opinion being stated, and felt like it was appropriate to bring the other point to light. ...for contrast and perspective.


...though I still don't know or understand how and why "Giganticness" came to be so inseperably ingrained in many of your perceptions of a werewolf, as tremendous size has absolutely nothing to do with wolves, or the old werewolf legends that all of this is based off of.

It's like saying that leprechauns should wear wizards hat's because it makes them seem even MORE magical. While that may be true that a pointy hat with magic sparkles may very well enhance the "magicalness" of the leprechaun, I have to question why that would make any sense.

Bigger werewolves are scarier. So what? Werewolves that can regenerate from a strewn pile of entrails, and have thier dismemberd hands move about on thier own, seeking to rejoin withe the rest of the body are even scarier still...but I think we can all agree that this just doesn't make sense.

I just don't understand.

Vuldari wrote:
Bigger werewolves are scarier. So what? Werewolves that can regenerate from a strewn pile of entrails, and have thier dismemberd hands move about on thier own, seeking to rejoin withe the rest of the body are even scarier still...but I think we can all agree that this just doesn't make sense.

Yeah, how'd he get his shirt and pants back together? I realise that the filmmakers didn't want the werewolf to have his "twig and berries" exposed, but come on, quit showing the werewolf in a full shot then!

ARGHH!

Off topic: actually I rather enjoy finding movie mistakes and inconsistancies. It must be a tough job to make sure all of the elements in a shot are consistant after breaking for lunch or even the day! Props to those that are good at it.

Vuldari wrote: ...though I still don't know or understand how and why "Giganticness" came to be so inseperably ingrained in many of your perceptions of a werewolf, as tremendous size has absolutely nothing to do with wolves, or the old werewolf legends that all of this is based off of.

It's like saying that leprechauns should wear wizards hat's because it makes them seem even MORE magical. While that may be true that a pointy hat with magic sparkles may very well enhance the "magicalness" of the leprechaun, I have to question why that would make any sense.

Bigger werewolves are scarier. So what? Werewolves that can regenerate from a strewn pile of entrails, and have thier dismemberd hands move about on thier own, seeking to rejoin withe the rest of the body are even scarier still...but I think we can all agree that this just doesn't make sense.

I just don't understand.

I don't understand where you got the idea that werewolves wouldn't be large creatures.

While I'm not necessarily saying that a werewolf must be clydesdale sized for me to like it, I do still think that they should gain a foot or more in height, and also gain more mass. Why do I feel this way? Because, hey, while werewolves may not necessarily be evil monsters, in my mind, they're still monsters. Big, scary monsters (though not necessarily scary all the time).

Werewolves aren't just about changing into a wolfish creature. It's about releasing a beastlyness within. It's about bringing all those primal instincts and emotions deep inside yourself into a body that's worthy of housing them...and some lame, very-little-mass-or-height-gaining "werewolf" just doesn't cut it...that's not a lot better than being human. That's boring and anticlimactic and doesn't hold a candle to what a werewolf should be.

I dislike most of what Hollywood has done with werewolves. But as far as I'm concerned, having them grow a good bit larger than their human form is something that Hollywood got amazingly and perfectly right.

Vuldari wrote:though I still don't know or understand how and why "Giganticness" came to be so inseperably ingrained in many of your perceptions of a werewolf, as tremendous size has absolutely nothing to do with wolves, or the old werewolf legends that all of this is based off of.

But it does... Wolves are quite large. Here's a nice picture for scale:



There are many, many, quotes dealing with people tracking wolves who are amazed at just how large their paw prints are.

Herpscott wrote: Yeah, how'd he get his shirt and pants back together? I realise that the filmmakers didn't want the werewolf to have his "twig and berries" exposed, but come on, quit showing the werewolf in a full shot then!

ARGHH!

Off topic: actually I rather enjoy finding movie mistakes and inconsistancies. It must be a tough job to make sure all of the elements in a shot are consistant after breaking for lunch or even the day! Props to those that are good at it.

They explain in the director's commentary that showing Hugh Jackman's butt took the viewers out of the scene, and that the pants were painted on in post-proudction on purpose to stop that.

I was kinda thinkin' more along the lines of the movie Monster Squad when the wolfman suffers complete destruction by means of a stick of dynamite. And now that you mention the Van Helsing wolf...I had forgotten the pants thing with him.

I would say that the fat person isn't werewolf. I mean that the fat person loses weight if he/she becomes a werewolf 'cause werewolves are naturally in good condition like wolves and dogs. Of course it would make others wonder if neighbors fatso becomes athletic and attractive in few days. Muchles become stronger and bigger (not so much with females as males though). I't would look quite strange if a lady gets a huge muschles all the sudden

But as usual, people wont suspect anything. Unless that fat girl in the next door becomes a bodybuilder in four days

Herpscott wrote: Yeah, how'd he get his shirt and pants back together? I realise that the filmmakers didn't want the werewolf to have his "twig and berries" exposed, but come on, quit showing the werewolf in a full shot then!

Hes shirt never came back.

Moonstalker wrote:I would say that the fat person isn't werewolf. I mean that the fat person loses weight if he/she becomes a werewolf 'cause werewolves are naturally in good condition like wolves and dogs.

I've seen chubby wolves. Wolves can vary in weight just like people do.

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:though I still don't know or understand how and why "Giganticness" came to be so inseperably ingrained in many of your perceptions of a werewolf, as tremendous size has absolutely nothing to do with wolves, or the old werewolf legends that all of this is based off of.

But it does... Wolves are quite large. Here's a nice picture for scale:

Image

There are many, many, quotes dealing with people tracking wolves who are amazed at just how large their paw prints are.

Large compared to the footprints of the Beagle they have at home, yeah...

The wolf in that picture is rougly the same size as the human next to it, but more densely muscled and thick-looking due to Fluffiness...

...SAME SIZE...not 1-3 feet longer/taller.

Many think woves are HUGE because we have all been raised around domesticated canines that are considerably smaller...even the bigger ones like dobermans and Husky's are small in comparison to the animals they inherited thier genetics from...so when you think of wolves as Wild Dogs, then it is natural to see that and think, "Damn...thats a BIG Dog!..."

But relatively speaking, in terms of size comparison to ALL animals, and not just domesticated canines, a wolf really is not that large next to a Human, a Lion, a Deer, a Bear or even an Ostrich (a Bird bigger than a Wolf).

Wolves really are not that big.

Compared to a 6' 3" Athletic HUMAN, a Wolf is almost puny.

aslong as the werewolf grows atleast 7 or 8inches then Im good.

Vuldari wrote:

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:though I still don't know or understand how and why "Giganticness" came to be so inseperably ingrained in many of your perceptions of a werewolf, as tremendous size has absolutely nothing to do with wolves, or the old werewolf legends that all of this is based off of.

But it does... Wolves are quite large. Here's a nice picture for scale:

Image

There are many, many, quotes dealing with people tracking wolves who are amazed at just how large their paw prints are.

Large compared to the footprints of the Beagle they have at home, yeah...

The wolf in that picture is rougly the same size as the human next to it, but more densely muscled and thick-looking due to Fluffiness...

...SAME SIZE...not 1-3 feet longer/taller.

Many think woves are HUGE because we have all been raised around domesticated canines that are considerably smaller...even the bigger ones like dobermans and Husky's are small in comparison to the animals they inherited thier genetics from...so when you think of wolves as Wild Dogs, then it is natural to see that and think, "Damn...thats a BIG Dog!..."

But relatively speaking, in terms of size comparison to ALL animals, and not just domesticated canines, a wolf really is not that large next to a Human, a Lion, a Deer, a Bear or even an Ostrich (a Bird bigger than a Wolf).

Wolves really are not that big.

Compared to a 6' 3" Athletic HUMAN, a Wolf is almost puny.

You're right Vuldari. The perspective in that picture is crazy, it makes the wolf look enormous. In reality, my black lab is much bigger than the wolves I visited at Mission:Wolf.
Here is a much better picture to give you an idea how big wolves are-
It's me with Maggie, a fully grown ambassador wolf from M:W

I'm 5ft5 and 125 lb, btw.
So I'm not tiny.

Note:

I'm past the point where I am trying to influence peoples preferences on how they choose to interpret werewolves in fiction. You are certainly free to feel however you wish about the subject.

I am just commenting, and giving explanations for my personal confusion and difference in opinion.

Vuldari wrote:

Lupin wrote:

Vuldari wrote:though I still don't know or understand how and why "Giganticness" came to be so inseperably ingrained in many of your perceptions of a werewolf, as tremendous size has absolutely nothing to do with wolves, or the old werewolf legends that all of this is based off of.

But it does... Wolves are quite large. Here's a nice picture for scale:

Image

There are many, many, quotes dealing with people tracking wolves who are amazed at just how large their paw prints are.

Large compared to the footprints of the Beagle they have at home, yeah...

No. Not to a dog. To a human hand.

A wolf's paw is anywhere from 4-6 inches in diameter. A larg dog's is about 3 inches. My own hand is about 7 inches, completely extended.

Farley Mowat wrote:[...] The truth is that my first sight of the wolf's paw-prints was a revlation for which I was quite unprepated. It is one thing to read in a textbook that a the footprints of an arctic wolf are six inches in diameter; but it is quote another thing to see them laid before you in all their bald immensity. It has a dampening effect on ones enthuasim . The mammoth prints before me, combined with a forty-inch stride suggested the beast I was proposing to pursue was built on approximately the scale of a grizley bear.
I studied those prints for quite a long time...

The wolf in that picture is rougly the same size as the human next to it, but more densely muscled and thick-looking due to Fluffiness...

...SAME SIZE...not 1-3 feet longer/taller.

The back of that wolf comes up to just below the shoulder of the man. Which means that if the guy were standing up, the back of the wolf would be just below the waist of the man. This would make him approximately 30-33 inches at the shoulder, which is perfectly normal for a wolf.

That's not even including the head.

Compared to a 6' 3" Athletic HUMAN, a Wolf is almost puny.

Not really. You have to compare apples with apples If that wolf stood up on his hind legs, he'd be at most 2 feet shorter than the 6' human.

PariahPoet wrote:You're right Vuldari. The perspective in that picture is crazy, it makes the wolf look enormous.

If you look at the feet, the distance between the person and the wolf isn't that large, which makes the size difference due to distance fairly short.

Renorei wrote:Werewolves aren't just about changing into a wolfish creature. It's about releasing a beastlyness within. It's about bringing all those primal instincts and emotions deep inside yourself into a body that's worthy of housing them...and some lame, very-little-mass-or-height-gaining "werewolf" just doesn't cut it...that's not a lot better than being human. That's boring and anticlimactic and doesn't hold a candle to what a werewolf should be.

So do you then believe that Ferral Wolves have bodies that are "lame" and UnWorthy of the wild spirits contained within them?

...because no Wolf in the world stands 9-feet tall on it's hind legs, or weighs 400 pounds...

In fact...on average, most Adult wolves weigh about as much as I do (120 pounds) between 40 and 175 at the most.
Source: California Wolf Center

Lupin wrote:
A wolf's paw is anywhere from 4-6 inches in diameter. A larg dog's is about 3 inches. My own hand is about 7 inches, completely extended.

Yes, this is true, but you also have to remember that a wolf's paw is much larger in comparison to its body than a dog's.

Lupin wrote:

PariahPoet wrote:You're right Vuldari. The perspective in that picture is crazy, it makes the wolf look enormous.

If you look at the feet, the distance between the person and the wolf isn't that large, which makes the size difference due to distance fairly short.

Yes, I know it isn't all perspective, but even so it's exceedingly large for a wolf. I'm not sure if it's the species of that one or what, but most wolves are not that big. Maggie was about as large as any of the other wolves at M:W.

[quote="Lupin"]No. Not to a dog. To a human hand.

A wolf's paw is anywhere from 4-6 inches in diameter. A larg dog's is about 3 inches. My own hand is about 7 inches, completely extended.

[quote]
The wolf in that picture is rougly the same size as the human next to it, but more densely muscled and thick-looking due to Fluffiness...

...SAME SIZE...not 1-3 feet longer/taller.[/quote]

The back of that wolf comes up to just below the shoulder of the man. Which means that if the guy were standing up, the back of the wolf would be just below the waist of the man. This would make him approximately 30-33 inches at the shoulder, which is perfectly normal for a wolf.

That's not even including the head.[/quote]
The first statement supports my claim that the wolf is roughly the same size as a human.

Human 7-inches.

Wolf 6-inches.

PariahPoet wrote:Yes, this is true, but you also have to remember that a wolf's paw is much larger in comparison to its body than a dog's.

Exactly.


I'm not sure what you are trying to say about a wolves size by measuring it's back against the persons waist. Again...if the back is level with, or sligthly below the humans waist, then thier hips would be almost level, again making thier legs, and genaral scale close to equal.

...and the human has a head that needs to be included as well.

Lupin wrote:[quote]Compared to a 6' 3" Athletic HUMAN, a Wolf is almost puny.

Not really. You have to compare apples with apples If that wolf stood up on his hind legs, he'd be at most 2 feet shorter than the 6' human.[/size][/quote]
Stating that the wolf would be two feet shorter than the human is supposed to be an argument Against my suggestion that it would look puny in comparison?


As for the perspective, the person is kneeling, and is behind the wolf. If thier positions were reversed and the person was standing up straight In Front of the wolf, their percieved sizes would appear slightly different, with the wolf looking marginally smaller. A few inches either way, and the difference between being in the fore-ground or back ground is all it takes.

How big should a werewolf be? Ultimately, a matter of opinion, of course, but I'd say, in gestalt, six and a half to seven and a half feet. It doesn't seem 'right' to me for them to be at/less than normal human size, but too large (e.g. W:tA-style crinos) brings in a new load of credibility problems all of its own, with regard to bodyweight and how much the skeleton can carry without problems.

(Or maybe that's why werewolves have such bad tempers ... chronic back pain! )

Vuldari wrote: I'm not sure what you are trying to say about a wolves size by measuring it's back against the persons waist. Again...if the back is level with, or sligthly below the humans waist, then thier hips would be almost level, again making thier legs, and genaral scale close to equal.

What I'm saying is that most of that isn't fur.

...and the human has a head that needs to be included as well.

Not really. I was comparing where the wolf would come up to on the human. With the head of the wolf, it would come up to about the navel, though that is dependant on the position of the head of the wolf.

Lupin wrote:[quote]Compared to a 6' 3" Athletic HUMAN, a Wolf is almost puny.

Not really. You have to compare apples with apples If that wolf stood up on his hind legs, he'd be at most 2 feet shorter than the 6' human.[/size]

Stating that the wolf would be two feet shorter than the human is supposed to be an argument Against my suggestion that it would look puny in comparison?[/quote]

See this photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/compassion ... t-1185488/

While the guy is beding down notice how little that guy is bending down to get face to face with the wolf, who is at an angle to the fence and isn't standing straight up either. This is a foot or so to an animal that spends most of its time on four legs. Personally, I would call an animal like that 'large'.

As for the perspective, the person is kneeling, and is behind the wolf. If thier positions were reversed and the person was standing up straight In Front of the wolf, the percieved size difference would appear slightly different, with the wolf looking marginally smaller. A few inches either way, and the difference between being in the fore-ground or back ground is all it takes.

Not really. The wolf are human are fairly close, which makes the apparent difference in height due to perspective fairly small.

Here's one where the human is close enough to tuch the wolf and it comes up to her waist:
http://www.wolfpark.org/images/howlnight/DSC_0146.jpg

And here's another: where the human is in front:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/compassion ... t-1185488/

But relatively speaking, in terms of size comparison to ALL animals, and not just domesticated canines, a wolf really is not that large next to a Human, a Lion, a Deer, a Bear or even an Ostrich (a Bird bigger than a Wolf).

And if you compare any of those to a blue whale they become absolutely tiny. The fact that humans and wolves are close to the same size is what makes a wolf a 'large animal'.

There's a reason he's called the 'Big Bad Wolf'.

PariahPoet wrote:Yes, this is true, but you also have to remember that a wolf's paw is much larger in comparison to its body than a dog's.

They're not exactly giant though:
http://images.nonexiste.net/view/wolfpa ... w_log.jpeg

You tell the Lupin. IM suprise thier s a debate about this, ever sence I was little I have always learned the fact that a wolf can be the size of a average human when standing upright.

Shadow- how many wolves have you actually interacted with? I don't know if Lupin has(wouldn't surprise me if he has, he is very knowledgable), but don't believe everything you hear.

Edit- Ok I just looked at that last statement and realized it might come across wrong. I was refering to people who tell you stuff when you're a kid that don't know crap about it. I wasn't saying that Lupin doesn't know what he's talking about.