Dana Stevens summarizes Johnson’s essay by stating his claim that shows are becoming more complex and more complicated over the last two decades and watching it makes you smarter. Stevens disagrees with Johnson and believes that most shows assist in rotting the brain and also claims that not watching TV will not make you dumber. Stevens then criticizes Johnson for not mentioning the recent controversies and terrorism in 24, and that he fails to account the commercials that interrupt the show. Common sense seems to dictate that watching too much TV is bad for you and that it doesn’t make you smarter. In my own view, I agree with Stevens that watching TV does not make you any smarter.
Not only would people not sit through a movie that long, some things don’t translate well from book to film. The screenwriter and the director have to decide what parts aren’t needed to tell the story and what parts can be moved around to make the film flow in a more fluid way. The director also has to find a way to take descriptions in the book and make images out of them. Without good editing and imagery you can still get a good film, it just won’t be a film that is true to the book. For Example, in the book Anne Frank, she was in love with Peter Vanpels a boy that was inside the annex with her.
Like most movies that are based on books, the movie does not follow the book very much at all. I believe that the short story and the movie of "The Birds" are extremely different. Although there are some similarities, the differences outweigh them. In this paper, I will discuss the similarities and differences in the works. The book was written by Daphne DuMorier, while the movie was
Rorabaugh’s book Berkeley at War offers a reasonably objective look at the different components of, what came to be known as, the Movement. Because it is lacking the ideological influence of many books about this time period, it offers a much needed non-bias account. In order to avoid such biases, Rorabaugh utilizes documents from the period such as city records, manuscripts, and periodicals, without the advent of reflective interviews from participants in the festivities. It is a book written by a historian, “not the memoir of an eyewitness.”(XII) Berkeley at War deals with the development of radicalism within the city as well as city politics in general and offers one of the best accounts of the duality between the city and university. It follows the progression from the 1960 SLATE demonstration against the House Committee on Un-American Activities to the rise of the Free Speech Movement to the fall of People’s Park.
The events in the movie are both unlike and alike the events in the novel. They were mostly similar because the movie was based on the novel, in other words the movie pretty much was the reenactment of the novel. For example the book was based on the two groups the Greasers and Socs and how they did not get along well, this lead to deaths which were shown in both of the movie and novel. The movie tended to exclude some scenes that were included within the novel. For example in the movie they did not include the scene when PonyBoy gets jumped by the Socs.
The First major difference between the book and the movie is the fact that the novel has so much more depth and details that cannot be put in a movie. The book has much more details about the Mohican tribe as well as the characters. For instance, in the Movie, the names of Uncas and Chingachgook are not mentioned. The book gives history on the Indian characters. This difference however is something that is unavoidable by the moviemakers.
The language was more formal and serious than in the commercial. The constraints were different however because not as many people read this article as how many people saw the Super Bowl commercial. This article was just as effective though because it focuses on the statistics which scares people into not wanting to drink and
However, the authorization did not contribute to the several other changes. Character portrayal and appearance was altered and many characters from the novel were taken out completely. Removal and alteration of characters led to differences in plot. The film also correctly adapts the novel in many ways. It keeps the Count’s ghostly, tall appearance.
The Punisher, however, seems to lack some important details that help a movie be of good quality. Batman Begins is better than The Punisher because of the character development, the number of villains introduced, and because of the variety of locations the movie is shot at. Character development is something that can be distinguished more in Batman Begins than in The Punisher. Batman Begins shows a more in depth coverage of the actual life and transformation of an every day civilian to a superhero. To accomplish this, more information was given on whom Bruce Wayne (Batman) was and what he had to go through.
Both the novel and movie were exceptional. However, a movie can never fully express the book, as it cannot show every single detail outlined by the novel. The movie did a great job at portraying the culture and people of Afghanistan, making the movie seem very vivid. However, the movie left out a bunch of details since the novel is long, and it do not have enough time to show them all. Sometimes this is also a good choice because some details are not that important, so they can be left out with no impact on the movie.