I don't want to labour this any further, as it's a menial matter, but...
wombstar wrote:The monster didn't cause a huge gap, a horse could step right over that, and we're not too sure how high those thorns are overhead.
So to sum up, you are saying that we don't know how high the thorns are because of... what, we don't get a clear enough view of them?
But you are also saying that we do know that the gap is small enough for a horse to step over it, even though we get no view of the gap at all? (It's 'below' the level of the screen when the monster appears.)
The knight must have banished the monster with his sword.
And you say that *must* have happened, even though we don't get any view of that at all either?
At that point they are at the foot of the mountain.
And you know that even though you don't get any explicit view of the foot of the mountain either?
I don't mean any disrespect, Wombstar, but I hope you see what I'm getting at here. You can hardly claim there is uncertainty about one thing due to its invisibility/obscurity, and then make absolute claims about other things that are invisible/obscure as well.
If you watch the bit just after the demon vanishes, you can see the hill continues some way down below the level of the pathway. So it probably isn't the foot of the hill. (How such an unnatural-looking ledge could have formed at altitude is therefore a bit of an issue, but we can probably put it down to sorcery.)
Before the Knight enters that thorn tunnel you can see the castle up high in the background. Lots of trees and other growth before it. There is no sight of trees once he passes the monster.
If it's an error it a mighty big error.
Yeah it is. Big errors happen, especially in animation. The artist probably just forgot drawing the thorns in the earlier frames. Or maybe the artist went back into the earlier frames subsequently and added the trees in to make the pictures look creepier, and then forgot to add them into the later frames.
Or, we could say the trees were part of the illusion of the monster, if we want to 'play the game'.
The other possibility is the monster in fact casted a spell (which is why the name comes up and flashing on screen) which teleports the knight closer to the castle?
Can't think why it would do that. It would have been far less effort for the monster just to stay hidden below the path and let the knight carry on riding - he would have get there anyway.
Ah, there is some severe over-analysis going on here, isn't there?
All else I will say before dropping the subject is that, if your view of it is right, there are some pretty major actions that have simply been dropped from the sequence, and that it sounds needlessly convoluted on the whole. The view I and Hobgoblin take of it is that the knight's arrival at Dunshelm is shown more or less in its entirety, and I would suggest that it makes sense that way, but that there's a clumsy mistake by the animators that leaves a continuity error in the scenery.
There's no absolute answer of course, but the animation error still sounds likelier to me, especially given the profusion of continuity mistakes in 1980's animation, and in
KM itself.