Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-25389622-20141101150445/@comment-25389622-20150112191909

Yey, I've reached over a thousand frames ^^

"There is a line on how descriptive an article is; I usually draw it when it detracts from the progression of the narrative, which is why I didn't include the trapping walls initially." I like this idea, but we should make sure that as much information is included, but without compromising the narrative. Not too vague, but not to complex so that the narrative doesn't flow. Let us learn from this ;-)

I quite like it too. It sounds pretty awesome. I was trying to think of some other cool words, but they don't come to mind when you think about it too hard :D

You always have a positive influence on me :-) I don't think that I did change anything then, I was just trying to formulate that sentence that I eventually wrote up ;-) I wouldn't be editing under that kind of circumstance.

OK, thank you ^^

I still need to read it. I thought about it today, but I won't do it until the weekend now, just so that I don't become too distracted from my exams. I would say that they don't matter because they are only practice ones, but the grades that I get will still echo until the actual day. Like last year: I get a D in History in the mocks, but then got an A in the actual exams (you can't get an A* at AS level, but you can in A2, which is what I am doing now in my second year). The point is that I’ll wait to question anything in the script until I've read it. I don't 100% trust what I have seen of the script so far (like it describing how stone steps turned to ice, or how the castle was rebuilt with ice, even though we think that it wasn't truly damaged. I don't think that Elsa can turn things to ice). Anyway, "cage" can stay, but it does question whether what finally happened was a cage, or unless they initially visualised an actual cage, but then settled for what we have.