No no no- we're talking about a real vampire & werewolf!

Yes yes--a REAL vampire and a REAL werewolf! When they fight in real life--who shall win! And what of the chimp! He is real too, as real as they...! I still put money on the chimp.

Obviously you didnt read Doc's reply and my reply to him correctly. Read those two posts again.

[QUOTE=_____V_____;805761]


Thats very true, but how many werewolves run around with crosses, garlic and running water after transformation? Even if they got those in their human form and waited for the full moon for their morphing, I dont see how they ll recognise and know the relevance of those things near them once they are transformed. The rage inside them will make them start running towards their nearest prey to rip them to shreds.




/QUOTE]

There is more of a chance of incidentally encountering an item vampires are vulnerable to then encountering one werewolves are vulnerable to. Running water could be anywhere, the scent of garlic could hang in the air near a restaurant dumpster, churchbells ring quite frequently. It's also not altogether unlikely depending upon the identity of the werewolf that they might have a cross on them at the time of transformation. If the werewolf is the sort that maintains some degree of intelligence during the change World of Darkness werewolves being an example, uprooting a fence post and impaling a vampire on it is not altogether impossible. Also, vampires sometimes take time to heal from being thoroughly mauled and dismembered.

This is giving me an idea that may come to light in a few months...

Agreed.

But its more unlikely that werewolves have some sort of memories left in them of their "human" form after fully transformed. So that is a real shot in the dark.

I havent read World of Darkness yet so I cannot comment on it (or exemplify by it). All of my arguments are based solely on - A) Stoker's portrayal of Dracula, B) Vampire and werewolf folklore and stories in literary fiction, and C) Media influences.

Although I must admit the media, specially movies, have watered down Dracula (and even other vampires, for that matter) considerably. Stoker's Dracula was a much, MUCH more powerful creature of the night. The lines with which Stoker has drawn his most popular character, draw a very powerful and monstrous creature than the one we have seen in movies, specially in the later modern versions.


His face was a strong, a very strong, aquiline, with high bridge of the thin nose and peculiarly arched nostrils; with lofty domed forehead, and hair growing scantily round the temples, but profusely elsewhere. His eyebrows were very massive, almost meeting over the nose, and with bushy hair that seemed to curl in its own profusion. The mouth, so far as I could see it under the heavy moustache, was fixed and rather cruel looking, with peculiarly sharp white teeth; these protruded over the lips, whose remarkable ruddiness showed astonishing vitality in a man of his years. For the rest, his ears were pale and at the tops extremely pointed; the chin was broad and strong, and the cheeks firm though thin. The general effect was one of extraordinary pallor.

– Jonathan Harker's Journal, Dracula, Chapter 2



There lay the Count, but looking as if his youth had been half restored. For the white hair and moustache were changed to dark iron-grey. The cheeks were fuller, and the white skin seemed ruby-red underneath. The mouth was redder than ever, for on the lips were gouts of fresh blood, which trickled from the corners of the mouth and ran down over the chin and neck. Even the deep, burning eyes seemed set amongst swollen flesh, for the lids and pouches underneath were bloated. It seemed as if the whole awful creature were simply gorged with blood. He lay like a filthy leech, exhausted with his repletion.

– Jonathan Harker's Journal, Dracula, Chapter 4


Just reading those descriptions send a shiver down my spine. Too bad the movies havent been as faithful to Stoker's images as they should have, except in a selected few outings of Chris Lee. And Shreck and Lugosi, but of course.

I would like to see a faithful Dracula. Lee comes the closest. He's clearly a barbarian and a predator, while other Draculas forget that this is a guy descended from Attilla the Hun.

Yeh.

Too bad people only know the guy from watching forgettables like Van Helsing or Dracula 2000, even Blade Trinity. Blade beat Dracula?! Oi Vey! :rolleyes:

You mean Vlad the Impaler?


And I agree. No one has gotten the brutality right. Too many directors want to make him some lonely, lovelorn pussy. Personally, I thought Dracula 2000 came closest.

Stoker's Dracula also makes mention of descent from Atilla.

So let's take into account that when a werewolf dies, it rises again as a vampire according to some lore. This gives the vampire the inside scoop on how a werewolf would act, but gives the werewolf a second chance to come back and try again.

I've always found that the most hilarious cause of vampirism, with the exception of falling off the left side of a haywagon.

haha, easily werewolves. deffinatley.:p

Oh I got ya. ;) Dracula was inspired by Vlad, descended from Attila. My mistake. I misread what you were saying there.

chuck norris would win.

Is that vampire Chuck or werewolf Chuck?


My money will be on werewolf Chuck, hes already got the hair after all

I believe in a fight between two Chuck Norris'


He'd still win.

The ice age occurred because Chuck Norris thought the Sun was lookin' at him funny.

Both would win............................................... .











....................... cos Chuck dont lose

Werewolves also have primal, animal hunting instinct. And nature always takes its course. 100% of the time.

Well, Doc illustrated a disparity in the kinds of objects the two creatures were vulnerable too. You mention the fact that a werewolf was unlikely to be carrying such objects specifically and/or was unlikely to realize their significance after a transformation.

I felt it quite pertinent to mention that it was equally unlikely that a Vampire would be carrying the relevant object.

The fact that it may or may not be useful is a question of whichever lore one gives credence too. In some lore the werewolf would be perfectly capable of using some of those things, though that is about as equal as the amount of lore with those vulnerabilities a little more then an irritation to a vampire.

So thank you V, I did read the post, and I still thinks it's equally relevant that neither are likely to be carrying the object incidentally. Not least of which, silver would not be obtained incidentally in amounts that would be useful as a weapon. The vampire would certainly have to go out of their way to procure them.

See, thats why I said you didnt read the initial posts. I am glad you went back and did exactly that. :)

*Pulls out a trumpet and blasts the main riff of the Jurassic Park theme*

I always think of The Fly when I see him.

I always think 'gross' when I see him.

:D .................

Werewolves vs. Vampires
 

Which do you prefer?

Myself, I find werewolves more interesting. They don't have the religious overtones of vampires, and are psychologically more intriguing. A werewolf represents the base nature of humanity, man's nature unleashed in its most primitive form; unchecked by, even counter to, the framework of civilization.

Plus, they don't have to wear ruffled shirts or listen to techno-music.

***bump***

Well, shit, I did a search and didn't find this thread. My bad.

P.S.--Werewolves are way cooler. And a werewolf would beat a vampire for the same reason a 120 pound dog can defeat a 200+ pound man--pure feral savagery. A man may be smarter than a German Shepard, but can't match the dog for ferocity and natural tools. Werewolves are fearless, while vampires are conscious of their vulnerabilities, and even the limitations of their "immortality," therefore susceptible to fear.

After reading the mini-series SUPERMAN AND BATMAN VS VAMPIRES AND WEREWOLVES I can't decide. They're both mean and cool.

Tell that to this guy:

http://www.therealjohnwu.com/images/...Mr_Vampire.jpg

I just never got into the whole Ware wolves thing. I've seen tons of great vampire movies... But the only wolf movie I ever got into was "Teen Wolf" with Michael Jay Fox, lol. I guess maybe it's just a personal preference...

So you didn't like American Werewolf In London or The Howling? Those two ruled and Wolfen wasn't to bad either.

Not to mention Curse of the Werewolf and The Wolfman (and a whole rake of Paul Naschy films)

For sure. But with the crap that resides on video store shelves these days people miss out on a lot of cool/classic flicks. Good stores are few and far between since DVD took over completely.

fucking werewolfs for sure. FUCKING GAY ASS VAMPIRES. to queer for my taste. and the fact about vampires not being able to go into the sun is dumb as shit.
werewolfs are just much more brutal.

I'm astounded that the werewolves are so far ahead of the vampires in this very unscientific poll. Is it backlash for the over exposure of vampires? Or is it a genuine preference for the werewolves?

It also occurred to me--not an original observation, I'm sure--that werewolves and vampires represent different extremes of the psyche. Werewolves are the id left unchecked, and vampires are the super ego left unchecked (not exclusively, and not always). Werewolves are still living and still mortal, generally, but are humans reduced to their most primitive instincts. Vampires are dead, and yet their minds live on eternally, generally, and in most depictions do not consider themselves human anymore; in fact, many times they consider themselves the superiors of humans through a kind of evolution.