Talk:The Looking Glass Wars
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
~~Looking Glass Wars/Lion King~~
Umm.. if someone was going to compare the Looking Glass Wars with the Lion King, wouldn't it also be true to compare the Looking Glass Wars with say, Hamlet, which The Lion King (aka Osuma Tezuka's Kimba: The White Lion)? After all, the Lion King is suppose to be a dumbed down, childrens version of Hamlet. Too bad Disney missed the point. ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I agree.... If we are going to go in we shoudl go all in.--Jessnotdean 03:43, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Hyphen in title
I've not seen "The Looking-Glass Wars" with a hyphen anywhere but on Wikipedia and sites based on it, and it's not hyphenated on the cover pictures I've seen. I think this article should be titled "The Looking Glass Wars" instead.
[edit] The playing card thing
Is there any kind of citation for this comment about the book being inspired by a set of playing cards in the British museum? Because that seems like a rather odd thing to inspire a book. Also the statement about the cards being illuminated by an 'odd glow' seems to be a particularly odd thing to put into an encyclopaedic article.
- That's just a fictional inspiration made up by Beddor. InsidiousTweevle 20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] United States?
The book was first published in the United Kingdom. Why then, does it list the country as United States? And does anyone know the exact date it was published in United Kingdom as the sentence "First released in the United Kingdom in 2004, The Looking Glass Wars was released in the United States on September 26, 2006." seems a little bit biased to me. InsidiousTweevle 20:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The character information is wrong, at least as far as the American edition. Alyss is not brought back to Wonderland on her wedding day by Hatter M, but rather Dodge. If the British version is different, you may wish to note that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.43.57.202 (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
No, the english version is the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.59 (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 'similarities', etc.
Much of this material is unsourced speculation / original research, however supportable. Shouldn't it be stricken? : "only assertions, theories, opinions, and arguments that have already been published in a reliable source may be used in Wikipedia" ([1]) 71.9.8.150 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)