(Untitled)

[fetorpse]

So, as some of you are aware, many small, simple things tend to irritate me to a nigh irrational extent. This is one of those things

Comments

[eyepatchmcgee]

HAHA WOAH! wow I feel pretty silly for never noticing that!! I'm sorry Jabberwocky, you definitely have glowing eyes!. To be fair though I didnt think they were sideburns i thought they were like whiskers or stiff eyelashes. XD

[iamdollface]

"It annoys me because if you're going to do a cool version of a classic, you should do your research instead of just being a wanker."

Assuming they did ANY research or put ANY thought into THAT film...

And yes, you are absolutely correct and thank you for taking a stand.

[joelcarroll]

Hey, technically, ANY drawing of a Jabberwocky could be correct, as there is no direct or correct description OF a Jabberwocky outside of having "eyes of flame".

The Jabberwocky can be anything, and is more a representation of that unknown thing in the woods that no one has really seen.

So, most illustrations of the beast are mostly just based on the first one that you've posted a link to above.
From all I'd ever heard, Carroll/Dodgson never meant for the guy to look like anything, as 70% of the poem is made up of nonsense words to begin with.
More of a writing exercise than anything attached to a visual.

[0notyoursavior0]

dayum son. That's research.

[exiter]

preach on, preacha

[0notyoursavior0]

yo you told and then got told.