Hi, I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. [I am at a loss to suggest a possible parallel for US culture] Also, the markings on the roads: It *seemed* like cars "drive on the right" (though many of the roads may have been single lane?). What's a dashed white line on the *right* edge of the roadway intended to mean? I.e., between the traffic lane and the *shoulder*! Similarly, a dashed yellow double line between lanes (here, yellow would signify a division between traffic moving in different directions; dashed signifying passing is allowed)... *BUT*, the dashes on one side were longer than the other! Is this just "normal variation" in the painting process (perhaps the lines were laid down at different times)? Or, is there some other significance (hard to imagine as making a U-turn on that roadway would confer some different set of privileges/restrictions based on the fact that the dashes on *your* side were now longer/shorter than previously). Of course, these are just things that tickle my "curiosity"... :> Thx, --don
OT: Norway (ping David B)
Started by ●June 12, 2015
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote:> Hi, > > I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English > audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" > film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek > vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? > Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. >It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining. It is /very/ tongue-in-cheek - the star actor is a comedian, even though he is deadly serious in the film. And while trolls have a strong background in Norwegian mythology and culture ("trolls", or "giants", are hugely important to the Noron mythology and religion from Scandinavia and Northern Europe), plenty of inspiration is taken from modern fairy tales - "blood of a Christian", or catching trolls by tying a goat to a bridge.> [I am at a loss to suggest a possible parallel for US culture]US culture is too young to have any equivalent myths, legends and cultural background. Trolls have been in Norway for thousands of years - it is only a few hundred years ago that they faded from common believe (as that other belief system, Christianity, finally pushed it out). Tooth trolls are alive and well in modern Norway: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karius_and_Bactus>> > Also, the markings on the roads: > > It *seemed* like cars "drive on the right" (though many of the > roads may have been single lane?). What's a dashed white line > on the *right* edge of the roadway intended to mean? I.e., > between the traffic lane and the *shoulder*!Yes, we drive on the right. But many roads are not wide enough to have stripes down the middle even though there is enough room for two cars or lorries to pass each other. In general, there are a lot less road markings on Norwegian roads than in the UK, for comparison.> > Similarly, a dashed yellow double line between lanes (here, yellow > would signify a division between traffic moving in different > directions; dashed signifying passing is allowed)...That's the same here.> *BUT*, > the dashes on one side were longer than the other! Is this just > "normal variation" in the painting process (perhaps the lines > were laid down at different times)? Or, is there some other > significance (hard to imagine as making a U-turn on that roadway > would confer some different set of privileges/restrictions based > on the fact that the dashes on *your* side were now longer/shorter > than previously).The solid/dashed/dotted line system is the same in Norway as in the UK, although many roads here have little or no markings. Basically, you may not cross a solid line (except to pass a stationary object, etc.), while a dotted line indicates a good place to cross. A dashed line says you /may/ cross, but it's a bad idea. And if there are two lines in the road, the one nearest you applies to /you/, while the other applies to traffic in the other direction. Yellow lines are used as dividers between traffic directions on major roads, while white ones are used between lanes going in the same direction. <http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Driving_in_Norway> <http://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/norway.html>> > Of course, these are just things that tickle my "curiosity"... :> > > Thx, > --don
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On 12.6.15 11:08, David Brown wrote:> On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English >> audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" >> film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek >> vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? >> Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. >> > > It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining. > > It is /very/ tongue-in-cheek - the star actor is a comedian, even though > he is deadly serious in the film. And while trolls have a strong > background in Norwegian mythology and culture ("trolls", or "giants", > are hugely important to the Noron mythology and religion from > Scandinavia and Northern Europe), plenty of inspiration is taken from > modern fairy tales - "blood of a Christian", or catching trolls by tying > a goat to a bridge. > >> [I am at a loss to suggest a possible parallel for US culture] > > US culture is too young to have any equivalent myths, legends and > cultural background. Trolls have been in Norway for thousands of years > - it is only a few hundred years ago that they faded from common believe > (as that other belief system, Christianity, finally pushed it out). > > Tooth trolls are alive and well in modern Norway: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karius_and_Bactus> > >> >> Also, the markings on the roads: >> >> It *seemed* like cars "drive on the right" (though many of the >> roads may have been single lane?). What's a dashed white line >> on the *right* edge of the roadway intended to mean? I.e., >> between the traffic lane and the *shoulder*! > > Yes, we drive on the right. But many roads are not wide enough to have > stripes down the middle even though there is enough room for two cars or > lorries to pass each other. In general, there are a lot less road > markings on Norwegian roads than in the UK, for comparison. > >> >> Similarly, a dashed yellow double line between lanes (here, yellow >> would signify a division between traffic moving in different >> directions; dashed signifying passing is allowed)... > > That's the same here. > >> *BUT*, >> the dashes on one side were longer than the other! Is this just >> "normal variation" in the painting process (perhaps the lines >> were laid down at different times)? Or, is there some other >> significance (hard to imagine as making a U-turn on that roadway >> would confer some different set of privileges/restrictions based >> on the fact that the dashes on *your* side were now longer/shorter >> than previously). > > The solid/dashed/dotted line system is the same in Norway as in the UK, > although many roads here have little or no markings. Basically, you may > not cross a solid line (except to pass a stationary object, etc.), while > a dotted line indicates a good place to cross. A dashed line says you > /may/ cross, but it's a bad idea. And if there are two lines in the > road, the one nearest you applies to /you/, while the other applies to > traffic in the other direction. > > Yellow lines are used as dividers between traffic directions on major > roads, while white ones are used between lanes going in the same direction. > > <http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Driving_in_Norway> > > <http://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/norway.html> > >> >> Of course, these are just things that tickle my "curiosity"... :> >> >> Thx, >> --don >One Norwegian curiosity is that the airfield markings are yellow instead of white, as they are better seen in snowy conditions. -- -TV
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On 6/12/2015 1:08 AM, David Brown wrote:> On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English >> audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" >> film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek >> vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? >> Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. > > It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining.IMO, there were too many places where it's "believability" was needlessly compromised (e.g., filming the "payoff" to the polish bear delivery guys)> It is /very/ tongue-in-cheek - the star actor is a comedian, even though > he is deadly serious in the film. And while trolls have a strong > background in Norwegian mythology and culture ("trolls", or "giants", > are hugely important to the Noron mythology and religion from > Scandinavia and Northern Europe), plenty of inspiration is taken from > modern fairy tales - "blood of a Christian", or catching trolls by tying > a goat to a bridge. > >> [I am at a loss to suggest a possible parallel for US culture] > > US culture is too young to have any equivalent myths, legends and > cultural background. Trolls have been in Norway for thousands of years > - it is only a few hundred years ago that they faded from common believe > (as that other belief system, Christianity, finally pushed it out). > > Tooth trolls are alive and well in modern Norway: > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karius_and_Bactus> > >> >> Also, the markings on the roads: >> >> It *seemed* like cars "drive on the right" (though many of the >> roads may have been single lane?). What's a dashed white line >> on the *right* edge of the roadway intended to mean? I.e., >> between the traffic lane and the *shoulder*! > > Yes, we drive on the right. But many roads are not wide enough to have > stripes down the middle even though there is enough room for two cars or > lorries to pass each other. In general, there are a lot less road > markings on Norwegian roads than in the UK, for comparison.But many single lane roads appeared to have *dashed* white lines on the shoulders. For example, see: <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Vikafjellet.jpg/250px-Vikafjellet.jpg> Here, a line that is solid can't be crossed (there are places where this is actually *enforced*! :-/ ) but a dashed line can. The line marking the shoulder is always (?) solid. Note, for example, the shoulders in: <http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:E6_motortrafikkvei.JPG> Does this, perhaps, acknowledge that on these narrow ("less than two lanes") roads, there will be occasions where drivers (in each direction!) will *have* to pull onto the shoulder to accommodate oncoming traffic?>> Similarly, a dashed yellow double line between lanes (here, yellow >> would signify a division between traffic moving in different >> directions; dashed signifying passing is allowed)... > > That's the same here. > >> *BUT*, >> the dashes on one side were longer than the other! Is this just >> "normal variation" in the painting process (perhaps the lines >> were laid down at different times)? Or, is there some other >> significance (hard to imagine as making a U-turn on that roadway >> would confer some different set of privileges/restrictions based >> on the fact that the dashes on *your* side were now longer/shorter >> than previously). > > The solid/dashed/dotted line system is the same in Norway as in the UK, > although many roads here have little or no markings. Basically, you may > not cross a solid line (except to pass a stationary object, etc.), while > a dotted line indicates a good place to cross. A dashed line says you > /may/ cross, but it's a bad idea. And if there are two lines in the > road, the one nearest you applies to /you/, while the other applies to > traffic in the other direction.There appears to be a refinement of the dash system that doesn't exist here (nor can I recall encountering it in Britain) as it applies to yellow (direction dividing) lines: continuous: Crossing illegal long dash, short gap (warning line): Crossing (overtaking) legal, but risky short dash, long gap: Crossing legal (good visibility) I.e., three different cases (and, even more when you consider double line scenarios: neither lane can pass; this direction can pass but not the opposing direction; opposing can pass but not this; anyone can pass). The scene that I noticed had one side of the "double line" as "long with short" while the other side was "short with long". Given the above, this would indicate it is "ok to pass (overtake)" in both cases; but, riskier for one direction than the other. Here, we would have: double yellow no passing, either direction solid with dashed no passing for the lane carrying the solid yellow dashed passing for each direction (In some places, a single yellow line would suffice for double -- solid or dashed indicating the first or third of these criteria)> Yellow lines are used as dividers between traffic directions on major > roads, while white ones are used between lanes going in the same direction. > > <http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Driving_in_Norway> > > <http://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/norway.html>Thanx!
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On 12/06/15 11:07, Don Y wrote:> On 6/12/2015 1:08 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English >>> audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" >>> film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek >>> vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? >>> Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. >> >> It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining. > > IMO, there were too many places where it's "believability" was needlessly > compromised (e.g., filming the "payoff" to the polish bear delivery guys)It was never meant to be "believable" - despite the format, it is not like the Blair Witch Project. You are supposed to laugh at much of the film, such as the scenes with Piotr's Maleservice (painting service), which are parodies of Polish workers in Norway.> >> It is /very/ tongue-in-cheek - the star actor is a comedian, even though >> he is deadly serious in the film. And while trolls have a strong >> background in Norwegian mythology and culture ("trolls", or "giants", >> are hugely important to the Noron mythology and religion from >> Scandinavia and Northern Europe), plenty of inspiration is taken from >> modern fairy tales - "blood of a Christian", or catching trolls by tying >> a goat to a bridge. >> >>> [I am at a loss to suggest a possible parallel for US culture] >> >> US culture is too young to have any equivalent myths, legends and >> cultural background. Trolls have been in Norway for thousands of years >> - it is only a few hundred years ago that they faded from common believe >> (as that other belief system, Christianity, finally pushed it out). >> >> Tooth trolls are alive and well in modern Norway: >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karius_and_Bactus> >> >>> >>> Also, the markings on the roads: >>> >>> It *seemed* like cars "drive on the right" (though many of the >>> roads may have been single lane?). What's a dashed white line >>> on the *right* edge of the roadway intended to mean? I.e., >>> between the traffic lane and the *shoulder*! >> >> Yes, we drive on the right. But many roads are not wide enough to have >> stripes down the middle even though there is enough room for two cars or >> lorries to pass each other. In general, there are a lot less road >> markings on Norwegian roads than in the UK, for comparison. > > But many single lane roads appeared to have *dashed* white lines on > the shoulders. For example, see: > <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/db/Vikafjellet.jpg/250px-Vikafjellet.jpg> >Those are just marking the edge of the road. The dashing here probably means you are allowed to stop at the edge (typically parked half-way off the road).> > Here, a line that is solid can't be crossed (there are places where this > is actually *enforced*! :-/ ) but a dashed line can. The line marking > the shoulder is always (?) solid. Note, for example, the shoulders in: > <http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/File:E6_motortrafikkvei.JPG> > > Does this, perhaps, acknowledge that on these narrow ("less than two > lanes") roads, there will be occasions where drivers (in each direction!) > will *have* to pull onto the shoulder to accommodate oncoming traffic?That could be a possibility. To be honest, I don't know all the details here - my driving license is from the UK before I moved to Norway.> >>> Similarly, a dashed yellow double line between lanes (here, yellow >>> would signify a division between traffic moving in different >>> directions; dashed signifying passing is allowed)... >> >> That's the same here. >> >>> *BUT*, >>> the dashes on one side were longer than the other! Is this just >>> "normal variation" in the painting process (perhaps the lines >>> were laid down at different times)? Or, is there some other >>> significance (hard to imagine as making a U-turn on that roadway >>> would confer some different set of privileges/restrictions based >>> on the fact that the dashes on *your* side were now longer/shorter >>> than previously). >> >> The solid/dashed/dotted line system is the same in Norway as in the UK, >> although many roads here have little or no markings. Basically, you may >> not cross a solid line (except to pass a stationary object, etc.), while >> a dotted line indicates a good place to cross. A dashed line says you >> /may/ cross, but it's a bad idea. And if there are two lines in the >> road, the one nearest you applies to /you/, while the other applies to >> traffic in the other direction. > > There appears to be a refinement of the dash system that doesn't exist > here (nor can I recall encountering it in Britain) as it applies to yellow > (direction dividing) lines: > > continuous: Crossing illegal > long dash, short gap (warning line): Crossing (overtaking) legal, but > risky > short dash, long gap: Crossing legal (good visibility) >This is normal in the UK (though the lines are white), at least on the roads I drive on holiday (mostly in Scotland).> I.e., three different cases (and, even more when you consider double > line scenarios: neither lane can pass; this direction can pass but not > the opposing direction; opposing can pass but not this; anyone can pass). > > The scene that I noticed had one side of the "double line" as "long with > short" while the other side was "short with long". Given the above, this > would indicate it is "ok to pass (overtake)" in both cases; but, riskier > for one direction than the other.That sounds right - you would get such a situation near a bend or hill, where traffic in one direction can see far ahead, but the other direction is much more restricted.> > Here, we would have: > double yellow no passing, either direction > solid with dashed no passing for the lane carrying the solid yellow > dashed passing for each direction > > (In some places, a single yellow line would suffice for double -- solid > or dashed indicating the first or third of these criteria) > >> Yellow lines are used as dividers between traffic directions on major >> roads, while white ones are used between lanes going in the same >> direction. >> >> <http://en.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Driving_in_Norway> >> >> <http://www.dangerousroads.org/europe/norway.html> > > Thanx!
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:23:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:>I watched _Troll Hunter_I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment on that.>Also, the markings on the roads:If you're really interested, here's the official handbook on road markings: http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/69741/binary/1036474?fast_title=H%C3%A5ndbok+N302+Vegoppmerking.pdf>It *seemed* like cars "drive on the right" (though many of the >roads may have been single lane?).Yes, we drive on the right.> What's a dashed white line >on the *right* edge of the roadway intended to mean? I.e., >between the traffic lane and the *shoulder*!It means that the road is not wide enough for a center line. Back when I did my license, the number was 5.5 meters, but I cannot find any reference to that number now.>Similarly, a dashed yellow double line between lanes (here, yellow >would signify a division between traffic moving in different >directions; dashed signifying passing is allowed)...Same here. Yellow between traffic in opposite directions. White for everything else.>*BUT*, >the dashes on one side were longer than the other!Double dashed yellow lines where the lines are of equal length indicates reversible lanes. Traffic can go either way, depending on traffic lights.> Is this just >"normal variation" in the painting process (perhaps the lines >were laid down at different times)?There are basically two types of dashed lines. Warning lines have long lines with short spaces, while "lane lines" have short lines with long spaces. Additionally, if the speed limit is 50 km/h or less, the lines (and spaces) are shorter. In other words, there are four different dashed lines. If the line is double, but with different length lines, the line towards your side applies to you. This can also be used with a contiguous line next to a dashed line. -- RoRo
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On 6/12/2015 2:45 AM, David Brown wrote:> On 12/06/15 11:07, Don Y wrote: >> On 6/12/2015 1:08 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English >>>> audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" >>>> film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek >>>> vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? >>>> Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. >>> >>> It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining. >> >> IMO, there were too many places where it's "believability" was needlessly >> compromised (e.g., filming the "payoff" to the polish bear delivery guys) > > It was never meant to be "believable" - despite the format, it is not > like the Blair Witch Project. You are supposed to laugh at much of the > film, such as the scenes with Piotr's Maleservice (painting service), > which are parodies of Polish workers in Norway.Ah. Too dependant on "cultural knowledge", then. Much of the humor lost on audiences that aren't aware of the subtleties in the references (even if they aren't so subtle). Like much of the humor in, e.g., _The Blues Brothers_ on a non-US audience. I much prefer a film to be *totally* "over the top" (not credible) or sufficiently self-consistent to be somewhat believable. E.g., like a pseudo-documentary of our Area 51. I.e., believers would cite it as Truth while others would be skeptical -- yet not have anything *in* the film to which to reference as evidence that the film *was* a joke (like an obviously amateurish special effect, an actor "winking" at the camera, etc.)>> I.e., three different cases (and, even more when you consider double >> line scenarios: neither lane can pass; this direction can pass but not >> the opposing direction; opposing can pass but not this; anyone can pass). >> >> The scene that I noticed had one side of the "double line" as "long with >> short" while the other side was "short with long". Given the above, this >> would indicate it is "ok to pass (overtake)" in both cases; but, riskier >> for one direction than the other. > > That sounds right - you would get such a situation near a bend or hill, > where traffic in one direction can see far ahead, but the other > direction is much more restricted.Here, the one lane would typically NOT allow "passing". And, typically, the double stripe would alternate between one direction and the other (usually with *both* allowed in the transition region). E.g., -------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------
Reply by ●June 12, 20152015-06-12
On 6/12/2015 11:14 AM, Robert Roland wrote:> On Thu, 11 Jun 2015 23:23:00 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote: > >> I watched _Troll Hunter_ > > I have not seen the film, so I cannot comment on that.It's probably worth a watch. The first time I watched it (years ago), I just turned on English subtitles, leaving the audio in Norsk. This distracts a bit from the visuals so you (I) miss some of the quicker transient scenes (which are so common in found footage films). More time *reading* what's going on than *watching* it! This second viewing I was already familiar with the plot line and many of the details so opted for English spoken audio -- to free my eyes to examine the film more critically (esp images of the "creatures", etc.). Unfortunately, the English audio track was *really* bad... reminiscent of the sterotypical english over-dubs of Japanese "Kung Fu" movies. So, this made the film much more "hokey". And, as David has suggested (elsewhere this thread), you'd probably understand more of the cultural references and hidden "jokes". [My all-time favorite is the Jet Car "dieseling" as it comes to a stop in Buckaroo Banzai... at such a low volume level as to almost make it unhearable!]>> Also, the markings on the roads: > > If you're really interested, here's the official handbook on road > markings: > > http://www.vegvesen.no/_attachment/69741/binary/1036474?fast_title=H%C3%A5ndbok+N302+Vegoppmerking.pdf<frown> Having English text might be more helpful! :> Though I can see there are many more marking combinations (e.g., "dotted" vs. "dashed") than I observed in the film. One noticeable difference is your intersection markings: here, there are typically markings that denote the formal extents of the "intersection". E.g., as you approach an intersection (and proceed through it), the markings that you *cross* are: - stop line (marks where you must stop when directed by traffic controls) - (optional) crosswalk (marks where foot traffic crosses the roadway) - (optional) extent of intersection (marks where the "intersection" legally begins The latter is important as it is a "nit" used to enforce certain traffic laws. E.g., if you have past the "stop line" (legally), you are not YET entitled to proceed through the intersection if the traffic control ("stop light") changes BEFORE YOU HAVE COMPLETELY ENTERED THE INTERSECTION. So, you can be *beyond* the stop line (which marks where you *must* stop) yet still be cited for "running a red light" -- if your vehicle hasn't progressed far enough *into* the intersection (where it can not remain!) before the light changes to "red". [There are places where enforcement is done via automation -- cameras, etc. If portions of your vehicle have not entered the *formal* intersection when the light changes, you'll be making an involuntary $480 (here) "contribution". :-/ ]
Reply by ●June 13, 20152015-06-13
"Don Y" <this@is.not.me.com> wrote in message news:mle7fu$8ie$1@speranza.aioe.org...> On 6/12/2015 1:08 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English >>> audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" >>> film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek >>> vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? >>> Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. >> >> It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining. > > IMO, there were too many places where it's "believability" was needlessly > compromised (e.g., filming the "payoff" to the polish bear delivery guys)was it even more unbelievable, or did you mean beer? tim
Reply by ●June 13, 20152015-06-13
On 13/06/15 13:18, tim..... wrote:> > "Don Y" <this@is.not.me.com> wrote in message > news:mle7fu$8ie$1@speranza.aioe.org... >> On 6/12/2015 1:08 AM, David Brown wrote: >>> On 12/06/15 08:23, Don Y wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I watched _Troll Hunter_ last evening (hint: don't enable English >>>> audio... just English subtitles!). Obviously, a "found footage" >>>> film. But, how much of it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek >>>> vs. addressing a (Norwegian/Scandinavian) cultural issue -- "trolls"? >>>> Sunlight? "The blood of a Christian"? etc. >>> >>> It is a fantastic film - very well made, and very entertaining. >> >> IMO, there were too many places where it's "believability" was needlessly >> compromised (e.g., filming the "payoff" to the polish bear delivery guys) > > was it even more unbelievable, or did you mean beer? >No, he really meant "bear". You just have to watch the film to understand!
