If the movie had more detail it would be more interesting. The book gave me a better picture. When I saw the movie it confused me because it didn’t have all the parts. If I just saw the movie I wouldn’t understand why Greasers and Socs were separated and why they hated each other. I think Cherry did a really good job; she fit the description really well I think.
Some places where the films differed were the assassination scene, and the acting of particular characters. At other instances, such as the orations, both editions were similar in the way they approached the scene. The advantage of a color version is an obvious one, and that is that the viewers feel as if the scene they are viewing is more realistic. A perfect example of how scenery and color was utilized to better portray the story was the assassination of Julius Caesar. Although a shocking event in both adaptations, the color version better fit the mood of the attack on Caesar’s life.
Every person has felt shame and remorse, at one time or another, after having made an enormous mistake, especially one that had been fear-driven. The mistake seemed infinitesimally small at the time, but proved to have a massive effect on the outcome of Eckels’ present-day world. Although Skurzynski’s story was an interesting read, I did not find it as thought provoking or relatable to me. The Nethergrave was about
With these changes there were consequences. The colors did not follow the rules and in the ned they ended up changing the noncolors and the society itself. This led to lasting changes in
Sabrina Thomas Mel-Con #2 The film Speak detracts from the novel, the book Speak did a much more thorough job of getting up close and personal with Melinda’s story, whereas the film left out specific details that would have helped the understanding of the story. On one hand, in the book Speak, everything was very detailed and improved how you understood the story; on the other hand, the film was focused on the overall big picture. Very rarely did the movie go into great detail. For instance, in the book, there is a part where she has finally built the confidence to tell Rachelle about what happened the night of the end-of-summer party that wasn’t shown in the film that I thought was very important when I read it. “I’m on a roll.
The interview would also put pressure on us by looking at that us all the time instead of writing something down to make it look professional. I would also sometimes speak too fast which showed I was nervous which wasn’t good for the role play we was doing. How we could have improved the interview There are many ways we could have improved the interview for example we could have practice the role play and remembered the lines better. The interviewer could have pretended to write something which would have put less pressure on me which would have made me less nervous. At the end instead of only asking 2 questions I could have asked one more which would look really professional.
In the old movie the characters were much younger but in the new film they were much older and mature. The characters also differ with their style; this is also because of the time they were shooting it in. The main character changed a bit as well, in old movie he looked more horrifying as they used grim which was very detailed but in the new movie they used it as well but it looks like they try to keep in more modern and make him look a bit cooler as well as adding new stuff like making claws sharper and longer. I think this is were the old movies have a difference with new movies. The old ones used to make it more horrifying and disgusting, and this is why I thought the first Nightmare On Elm Street was more scarier then a remake.
I do also believe that it would be a gateway for law enforcement to be able to exploit people more often and pick on them because of something on their record. There are a lot of positive things that would come form the ID cards but I think that the cons out weigh the pros for me. So therefore I believe that for me William Safire made a better argument. In Safire’s essay, he explains to us that with
This is done for several reasons which include the idea that an addition to the movie may enhance the story. *The book has more information about the story while movies are shortened and with less information. Also, for what the producer and director believe will enhance the entertainment aspect of the film, they made add information that was not at all seen in the book. So people should read the books before they watch the movie. The other aspect of the book vs the movie is the instant ability to re-read passages that at first the reader did not totally grasp.
To solve this problem the developers usually release two versions of the same movie. A rated one for more mature and young audiences and an unrated one, which usually consists of vulgarity every few seconds. ! The consequences of censorship can be devastating to some people but not all. Some negatives of this are that it works against creativity, and it may intrude the privacy of some people.