To Wag Or Not To Wag

[GhostBat]

Werewolves have been portrayed in many ways throughout history. Once transformed, they range in appearance from fully wolf to nearly human. As werewolf geeks I must ask you this:

Do werewolves have tails, or do they not?

[Wolf26]

Of course they do...
i mean, who ever saw a werewolf in a movie or painted or however without a tail?!

[DarkHunter]

Of course they do...
i mean, who ever saw a werewolf in a movie or painted or however without a tail?!

Really? You don't know better? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6L4NnCg2TKo) This movie is like sacred!

Granted I think tails as an aesthetic are kind of better for werewolf movies.

[Chiron Jackal]

Werewolves without tails look silly.

[GhostBat]

I'm actually pretty surprised no one here is saying they prefer werewolves without tails. There are so many popular werewolf movies that portray the werewolf entirely tail-less.

[Wolf26]

Thats becouse having a tail would be awesome

[Hoplite]

a wolf without a tail??!!! cmon...looks incomplete...the best movie werewolf i've seen yet is in Van Hellsing..and it does have a tail ;)..i'm not saying that i like it because it has a tail, but because werewolf in my imagination is a overgrown wolf walking on two feet...and that's certainly not pretty without a tail, don't you think? :D

[J.L.R.]

a wolf without a tail??!!! cmon...looks incomplete...the best movie werewolf i've seen yet is in Van Hellsing..and it does have a tail ;)..i'm not saying that i like it because it has a tail, but because werewolf in my imagination is a overgrown wolf walking on two feet...and that's certainly not pretty without a tail, don't you think? :D

None of the werewolves used in Van Helsing had tails per say. I don't remember seeing any.

I agree with Ghosty though... A tail gives the werewolf a sense of balance to its design. I could see it being a tool as to keep the wuffer balanced as it walks upright. Its lupine legs would give it a forward slant, and the tail would help keep the beasty from falling forward, or for that matter, having to walk on all fours all the time.

[Necro Mortis]

Good question. Some of my favourite werewolf portrayals are without tails. American Werewolf in London, for one. But I like to think of them being upright with tails for balance. Strangely enough perhaps, I think that when they are on all fours they look good without a tail to highlight the fact that they are wolfish and human, wolfish on all fours, no tail like a human. Correspondingly when they are upright with a tail it again show their two sides.

So that's my answer; upright with a tail or on all fours without looks good to me.

[Wolf26]

a werewolf without a tail is unoriginal, looks silly, and dosen't make sence, even a good movie can be ruined with a tail-less werewolf.
So anyone who thinks werewolves without a tail are better, REALLY need to do a reality check.

[Necro Mortis]

a werewolf without a tail is unoriginal, looks silly, and dosen't make sence, even a good movie can be ruined with a tail-less werewolf.
So anyone who thinks werewolves without a tail are better, REALLY need to do a reality check.

You know, there was a time when this post would really bother me and I'd rant at you for a good few pages about how you're an idiot. Not now though, I just let my sardonic observations do that for me in one simple post.

[Binkx]

a werewolf without a tail is unoriginal, looks silly, and dosen't make sence, even a good movie can be ruined with a tail-less werewolf.
So anyone who thinks werewolves without a tail are better, REALLY need to do a reality check.

Seeing as the aesthetics of a werewolf has absolutely no foundation in reality beyond books and media, I fail to see how people would need a reality check for their opinion of whether or not a werewolf looks better with or without a tail.

Now my opinion, yeah sure tail, but it's not a must have thing. If they do the rest of the anatomy realistically enough, not having a tail wouldn't really be a problem. But then again, I never even paid attention to whether they had tails or not till I originally saw this thread. Plot, acting skill, casting, and overall cinematography held more weight than if they decided to give the werewolf a tail or not.

[demonic_monkey]

Werewolves with tails don't quite appear in movies as much as the tail-less variety. In certain movies, namely Underworld and other such movies where they prefer to incorporate the magic of make-up and animatronics, adding a functional tail isn't easy. In other movies, they use actual wolves and CGI wolves. With these wolves, it's much easier to attach a tail. My vote goes to tails, as werewolves with tail are not used very often and are more aesthetically pleasant in my eyes.

[Wolf26]

[QUOTE=Binkx;17975]Seeing as the aesthetics of a werewolf has absolutely no foundation in reality beyond books and media, I fail to see how people would need a reality check for their opinion of whether or not a werewolf looks better with or without a tail.
QUOTE]

...i know...
what i meant is, werewolves have tails almost everywhere, only place i remember them not having is some movies. And the reality check i meant is checking pictures of them from 21st century.

[Vendetta]

what i meant is, werewolves have tails almost everywhere, only place i remember them not having is some movies.
What are you basing this on? I can't remember too many other mediums going into loving detail describing a werewolf's tail.

And the reality check i meant is checking pictures of them from 21st century.
So only the past 10 years?

[J.L.R.]

Werewolf lore from antiquity, through out the middle ages, and to the 16th and 17th centuries, always depicted a werewolf as a man/woman who turned or was turned into a wolf. As it was just a really large wolf, it would have had a tail.

The hybrid form that is now common place in movies and such, didn't come into being until the advent of film. Some of the early silent era films used actual wolves or wolf-dog hybrids, but that changed with the Universal classic, "Werewolf of London". Later Universal would one up itself with "The Wolf Man". Curt Soidmak had originally intended to use an actual canine, the studios local German Shepherd, to play the part of the werewolf, and the dog did make an on screen appearance as Bela's werewolf form. The studio execs though believed it would be too scary and opted for the more human/less scary man form. Of course, because of the more human appearance the tail was axed as it would have just looked silly.

The humanistic werewolf or "Wolf Man" styled werewolf would become the trade mark beast, with the "Curse of the Werewolf" design becoming the high mark of the make up design, that is until... "The Howling"...

The Howling was the first movie to depict a werewolf as half human/ half wolf. While the werewolf retained some human characteristics, it resembled a large upright wolf, minus the tail. It was also the Howling werewolves that inspired the designs for White Wolf's own werewolves for Werewolf: the Apocolypse.

An American Werewolf in London also showcased a record breaking beastie, and in fact it would end up besting Howlings werewolves, largely due to the dramatic TF sequence. While the Howling's was fantastic, it would AWL's that would win awards. AWL featured a werewolf that was getting back to the more classical wolf design of the old lore. Early maquettes of the werewolf actually showed the beast with a tail, but the tail would be later axed from the design as it would have added further complications to the already complicated puppet, and Rick Baker wanted the beast to retain some human characteristics. He had originally intended for the beast to be bipedal and vehemently argued for this with John Landis. Their argument actually created some bad blood between the two, but not before they reconsiled to finish the film.

In short, the large reason for no tails in movies, is because of the tech involved. I've seen low budget werewolf films, like Ginger Snaps where the tail looked like nothing more than a rat's tail. It was lame. However, with the advent of better puppetry and CGI, a fully functioning tail could be created, and be made believable.

[Wolf26]

What are you basing this on? I can't remember too many other mediums going into loving detail describing a werewolf's tail.

You could simply search for "werewolf" pictures with google, and see that nearly all of them are with tails.

So only the past 10 years?

If you want to see good pictures, then yes.

[Hoplite]

If you want to see good pictures, then yes.

done by fresh minds i suppose?

ps. googling and researching aren't the same thing..

and me still loves werewolves with tails..

[Vendetta]

You could simply search for "werewolf" pictures with google, and see that nearly all of them are with tails.
Man what?! I don't want to see a bunch of furry deviantArt crap.

If you want to see good pictures, then yes.
So before 2000 there were no good werewolf pictures?! I'm going to guess you are 15 or younger (and possibly retarded.)

[JadeAngelice]

Who refers to the 2000s as "The 21st century" ...? Is this a new-fangled kid thing? If so, I feel so very old.

More on topic, I was just wondering how this got so filled with lively debate! We do realize we're talking about whether or not werewolves have tails, right? Right. Just making sure everybody knew.

Okay, they totally look better with tails.

But what if they're like, mutty werewolves? Like, they have a mama werewolf and a daddy wereaustralianshepard? ...Then they naturally have no tails. Then there's no argument. Who says werewolves all have to be purebred? XD

Weremutts. That would be an awesome movie. Move over, Wolfman, Weremutt will eat your SHOES. Ooooh.

[Vendetta]

Werewolf tails: serious business (at least since the 21st CENTURY!)


Also, a quick GIS of "werewolf" reveals at least a decent handful of pics of werewolves without tails, and that's on just the first page.

[Wolf26]

Also, a quick GIS of "werewolf" reveals at least a decent handful of pics of werewolves without tails, and that's on just the first page.

haha, so you checked afterall. what are you, a hypocrite, or do you just like to piss off people who try to explain something to you.
And for your information I didn't mean there are no good pictures of werewolves before 2000, just that they are painted better since, becouse of technology and becouse people immagine them a lot diffrently then they did then.

[Vendetta]

haha, so you checked afterall. what are you, a hypocrite, or do you just like to piss off people who try to explain something to you.
And for your information I didn't mean there are no good pictures of werewolves before 2000, just that they are painted better since, becouse of technology and becouse people immagine them a lot diffrently then they did then.
I... I just... don't...

Bwahahahahahaha!!!

[Binkx]

And for your information I didn't mean there are no good pictures of werewolves before 2000, just that they are painted better since, becouse of technology and becouse people immagine them a lot diffrently then they did then.

The technology has nothing to do with the skill of an artist, just to make this point very clear. It is extremely difficult, no matter what medium you use (pencil, paint, photoshop, any art form at all), to create a decent work of art, let alone a good one. And using only the past 10 years as your proof for the validity of a "reality check" is just straight...stupid, for lack of better word. You might as well say "Vampires sparkle because during the 21st century that is what they did, sparkle, in Twilight"

Now don't get me wrong, I respect your opinion, it is very sound. But your phrasing is NOT sound. Try to think before you post.

[demonic_monkey]

Haha, so you checked afterall. What are you, a hypocrite, or do you just like to piss off people who try to explain something to you?
And for your information I didn't mean there are no good pictures of werewolves before 2000, just that they are painted better since, because of technology and because people imagine them a lot diffrently then they did then.

Perhaps spellcheck and lessons in grammar might help as well.

Anyway, Binkx has a good point. It's not the tech, but the talent that makes the art good. There were tons of great artists around before 2000. Look at Da Vinci, for example. There weren't computers and whatnot when he was alive and the Mona Lisa is still considered one fo the greatest works of art ever made.

P.S. I hate sparkly vamps.

[Necro Mortis]

You could simply search for "werewolf" pictures with google, and see that nearly all of them are with tails.

Since when were people on deviantART authorities on werewolf mythology? Also, people painting better "becouse" of technology? If you're still at school I suggest you stop doodling werewolves with tails into your exercise books and start paying attention.

[saphira]

Of course they do...
i mean, who ever saw a werewolf in a movie or painted or however without a tail?!

but there is a possibillity.:confused:

[kenan]

true, a werewolf without a tail would be strange. But other authors, movie directors, ect ect, have different ways of portraying the image to the viewers.

[<\Mutt/>]

we do look better with tails dont we??? lol

[Net]

Well, I'd be going entirely off the feel of it. If I was a werewolf, I gotta say it would most probably suck if I didn't have a tail to wag around or something.

Just a werewolf body (which seriously could be anything) and no tail? This freakin' blows. I don't even know if I have super strength or super stamina or super athletics or climbing on walls. For all I know I could just be hairier. Hairy+No Tail=Sucky Experience. "This isn't different at all! I went through all that possible-traumatization for nothing!"

[Kumutamos]

Werewolves have been portrayed in many ways throughout history. Once transformed, they range in appearance from fully wolf to nearly human. As werewolf geeks I must ask you this:

Do werewolves have tails, or do they not?

lmao do wolves have tails?there is your answer

[demonic_monkey]

lmao do wolves have tails?there is your answer

Where? I don't see it...