Cruciarius
Vixixi
Like the unicorn, there are many different physical forms for the basilisk, also known as the cocatrice (sorry if I spelled that wrong). The version they had of the basilisk in Harry Potter
is one correct way to portray it. Another correct form is that of a small, winged serpent. A third (and an old one that made me laugh hysterically when I saw a medival picture for it) is basically a rooster with a snake-like tail and bat wings.
ok maybe i got the pegasus wrong, but don't be messing with the basilisk or cockatrice.
basilisk is a large lizard, which has about 6 legs and turns things to stone. NOT just a big snake and i've never seen one with wings.
cockatrice is a large rooster like creature, which can breathe fire.
their is a HUGE difference between them. i can't see how they are mixed up.
[sighs] I just love people with closed minds. They're so reasonable and open to different possibilities....
rolleyes
The whole thing with cockatrices (thank you for the correct spelling) and basilisks is that the former is "female" and the latter is "male". For those of you who don't get the joke, basilisks and cockatrices come from eggs laid by roosters, and hatched by a frog (or was it toad?) under the Dog Star. There might be a limit of days, but I forget that. My only gripe with the basilisk in the HP movie was that they didn't follow the book.
My darling cousin also pointed out that I didn't really say what my opinions on Hollywood unicorns are. On the whole, my opinions of Hollywood in general are mixed: sometimes they do an excellent job, most of the time they don't. On the case of unicorns, it depends on the situtation.
If the unicorn is playing a minor role, such as in
Narnia, then I sigh and ignore any "mistakes"; keep in mind that when making a movie, the people holding the purse strings will cut back in certain areas to try and keep the whole cost of a film down, otherwise the movie will be too expensive and could possibly flop before it's even completed from lack of money. If you've got the special two-disc version of
Die Hard, watch it with the commentary subtitles and pay special attention to what is said about the cost of the movie. You'll have a whole different opinion on how much it costs to make a movie after that. And
Die Hard, not a cheap movie to make, does
not have the no-doubt expensive computer graphics that
Narnia has. They already had to have Lucy and Susan riding Aslan, and having two girls ride a computer-graphic lion is no cheap trick; give them a break for the unicorn Peter rode.
If the unicorn (or ki-lin even) plays a larger part in the movie than usual, then I'm far more likely to be a little nit-picky. Again, keep in mind that Hollywood's going to try every trick in the book to save cash and yet keep the special effects and such good. If they did a cheap job, you can usually tell because of the other crappy special effects, and therefore you are allowed to complain because they were doing a crappy job in the first place.
Any other questions?
