Journal 3

A recent favorite of mine was Eat Pray Love. I absolutely fell in love with the book and was SO excited to see it was coming out on a movie. However, it was difficult to truly capture the beauty of the book, in the movie. This sounds strange because you all of a sudden have visuals and actual characters speaking out at you. However, the movie left little room for imagination. I had pictured it one way, and the movie made me feel it had to be this other. Now when I read it, I can only imagine the movie. They needed to change things for different reasons. I think due to time contraints and also to appeal to a different audience. Although I'm sure they are aware that their regular readers are going to be viewing it as well, there is going to be a new target audience when making a movie based on people bringing their family, spouse, boy friend, girlfriend ect. What fascinated me is that people were either extremely happy with the book/movie or absolutely hated both. There was a select audience that felt the main character,(julia roberts in the movie) was being extremely selfish and that it wasnt reality and life isnt that easy. However there was another select group, mostly young women, that felt that this is amazing and could completely relate to many of them. I even have a few friends that felt so moved--that they decided to pick up and travel themselves. It was a powerful text, and a less powerful movie, I'd say. I simply wasnt as emotionally invested in each moment in the movie. I think it tells me the importance by basically saying that imagination and setting is key and that although we might have seen the movie, it is important to understand the context when reading , as our own perceived way, and not necessarily the way that others see it.

Journal 3

One text I could definitely relate that had the movie and the novel and were completely different was Twilight. The novel was enchanting and was one that as the pictures of the words played out in my head, the writing took me over and I was completely take over by the story I was reading. When it came time to watch the movie, it was nothing like the book the characters weren't as i had pictured them and several scenes didn't play out as I thought they did in the book. The difference between reading and watching a movie is when you are reading, you are the creator and when you are watching a movie it is someone else feeding you their version of the story.

Journal 3

Senior year in high school came around and I was told by some idiot of a teacher to start reading books/novels/short stories/texts for college.  The book I stumbled upon was written way back in the 1930s called The Hobbit.  The Hobbit was a children’s fantasy novel about a hobbit that would go off on adventures through the lands of his time with a powerful ring that could do unimaginable things.  The author, J.R.R. Tolkien, eventually made this story into several, creating the Lord of The Rings trilogy in the 1950s.  Today, we are all familiar with these Lord of The Rings movies about Frodo Baggins’ adventure through middle earth to the gates of Mordor to destroy the one ring that rules the rest.  The stories of J.R.R. Tolkien published in the 1950s hold strong in the movies with a few 21^st century adjustments.  The main point to focus on is that both the books and the movies each display a key theme of persistence.  To maintain the persistence that Frodo does throughout the story, he relies on friendships.  How? Frodo maintains trust in the people and friends around him throughout the story, which in turn helps Frodo to push on.

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence.

Talent will not;

nothing is more common that unsuccessful men with talent.

Genius will not;

unrewarded genius is almost a proverb.

Education will not;

The world is full of educated derelicts.

Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent.

The slogan ‘Push On’ has solved and will always solve

the problems of mankind.”

Journal III

One of my favorite film adaptions was made into Evan Almighty. Taken from the bible its the story of Noah's ark. Steve Carroll who represent Noah is in charged of getting two types of animals on a boat that will save them from the flood. The adaptation added a lot of extra things including comedy to the story. The story was slightly altered in that there were many problems going on with property issues and the environment. But Steve Carroll didn't think it was right for them to destroy the land. The is were if differentiated from the bible. In addition it appears in a different era. This is happening now when the bible happened a long time ago. The issue is trying to save the animals and save life as we know if from destruction. They relate to a specific time in that, thats when this took place. The culture is very different from the different time periods. It tells you that different things are going to change the context because they occur in different time periods along with different cultures.

Journal Three

One of my favorite book-to-movie adaptations is The Outsiders. What I liked most about it was that the movie kept things relatively the same as the book. A lot of newer movies change so much of what happened in the book. I don't know if this is to attract different audiences or to accomplish something else, but it happens. My favorite part of the book/movie is the characters. They all fit their parts really nicely and do a great job of portraying their specific roles. When The Outsiders was written in 1965, published in 1967, and set in the 1960's, a lot of stuff was going on. A lot of sexism and racism was going on in this decade, a gallon of gas was 25 cents, and houses sold for about $12,000. What do all of these things mean? They might have had something to do with what was going on in the book because of the fact it was set in the 1960s. When I finally saw the movie in seventh grade, after reading the book for my English class, the way I imagined the characters and their relationships with one another turned out to be exactly how I pictured them. Also, there were many big name actors in this movie, which I was surprised to find out. Matt Dillon, Patrick Swayze, Tom Cruise: who wouldn't want to see this movie?

Journal Three

My favorite film adaptations were those of the Harry Potter books by J.K. Rowling. I loved every page of all seven books, so when I heard that movies were to be created for Harry Potter I was really excited. I think that the film is so good; it is accurate with the books in every aspect and I think that the producers did a really nice job making them contemporary and easily relatable to the audience they had targeted.
The films and the books kept the same general plot and idea. Harry's ultimate goal is to kill Voldemort and fight for good. Every issue that is raised in the books is kept for the films and is the same as in the book. I think that is why the films were such a great hit, because the books and the movies were exactly alike.
The Harry Potter movies were definitely created with the teenage audience in mind. There is a lot of action and fighting, love and romance and heartache as well. There is magic and wonder and I think that this appeals to every audience. They are also very serious, which applies to the older audiences.
I think that in watching a movie it is harder to use your imagination, but when reading a book you can imagine the scenese and characters however you want, making it more real to you personally.

Journal 3

One if my favorite film adaptations is Nicholas Sparks' book A Walk to Remember. In the movie they did not change a lot of things about the book. All of the characters were portrayed almost exactly the same as they were in the book, except for Landon's father who was a Senator in the book but a doctor in the movie. This allowed Landon to ask for his father's help when his girlfriend tells him she has leukemia, something he could not do in the novel, and therefore is able to make amends with his father in the movie, which did not happen in the book. Another major difference in the movie was the ending. In the novel, it is unclear whether Jamie dies of leukemia or not, whereas in the movie they show Jamie's death and funeral. Other than these few changes though,there were not really any other very significant changes made in the film adaptation. Both the movie and the book took place in a small rural town in the South, during the the 1950's, but the book was only written a few years before the movie was made. So there were not many adjustments that needed to be made concerning the time period, and also because the movie was meant to be historical.

Journal Three

One of my favorite film adaptations is the Harry Potter series. The movies stay pretty true to the books by keeping the major events and interesting details. This keeps the feel of the books in the movie and keeps the readers satisfied with the adaption. Throughout the films, however,  they did change certain aspects. Sometimes they were necessary so that the movies would not be too long but others seemed to be changed just for the heck of it. One example is when they didn't put in a scene about an obstacle that Harry has to go through to find the Sorcerer's Stone.
The main issues in the series is good vs. evil. This doesn't relate to many of the readers, but another theme, friendship, does. Ron and Hermione stick with Harry through all of the books. They are truly loyal friends and they are together through the best and the worst.
It is hard to think about the Harry Potter series and a specific context. I don't think in this case there is a certain frame of mind that would help you understand the books.

Journal 3

One of my favorite film adaptions would be the BBC's 2009 adaption of Jane Austen's Emma. Starting from a very young age I watched Miramax Film's adaption of Emma starring Gwyneth Paltrow. I loved this movie and it became one of my favorite movies. Since about a year ago I began watching this new mini TV series of Emma. This movie is much longer in length (about 4 + hours) than the 1996 version of Emma (which is only about 2 hrs). At first when I watched the new version I did not like it because I was so used to tthe older version. However as I watched a few more times I realized that I liked the new one better after all. Since it is longer in running length, it gives more time to develop the characters. It also gives much detail about certain scenes and adds scenes not even mentioned in the Miramax version. For example, Box Hill is a place that they all visit after pick strawberries at Mr. Knightly's estate, and it is here where Emma insults Miss Bates. Also, some of the characters are exaggerated. Mr. Elton is even more prideful, Mrs. Elton is even more annoying, Miss Smith is more air-headed, and Mr. Frank Churchhill is even more rood. I think that this helps to make the movie more funny and interesting. It gives the viewer stronger opinions about the characters in the movie. Emma is more influenced my Frank Churchhill, Jane Fairfax is very soft spoken, and Mr. and Mrs. Weston have larger roles in this adaption. I think that more of the countryside, village, landscapes, and estates are shown more throughout the movie. I really like this added detail because it makes the viewer feel as if they are in England during the Regency Era. After being accustomed to seeing this new adaption of Emma, I saw the older adaption and it seemed as if the movie went by so fast. Now, to me, it seemed as if this version had left out half the movie! I must say that the clothing in the older adaption is much better than the clothing in the new version. Emma is very wealthy and the daughter of a gentleman, yet her clothing style is rather plain. By the look of her clothing style, she didn't look much wealthier than Miss Smith! The wording between the two versions is also different. I think that the older adaption is probably closer to the wording in the novel, but I think that maybe the wording in the new version is easier to understand to us in today's world.

Journal 3

I have chosen to do the film adaptation of Harry Potter.  After reading the Harry Potter books then watching the movies, I was able to pick out key points that were left out.  Harry Potter is about a boy wizard whose parents are killed by an evil wizard.  The books describe the years of his life after his parents were killed.  The last book turned movie of the series is called “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.”  Harry, Ron and Hermione go on a quest to destroy once and for all the evil wizard Voldemort.  With the help of friends and allies, Harry and his friends find their way around the world to destroy Voldemort's most prized possession.  The plot of the movie is very close to that of the book but because of time constraints certain parts of the book had to be taken out.  A part of the book that was greatly reduced was when Harry stays at the Weasley’s house for a wedding.  In the movie this scene is very short, but in the book there are many pages dedicated to this scene.  In short, Harry learns about all the people that are trying to kill him.  He also learns possible allies that can help him while he is out on his journey.  In the movie none of these people are mentioned.  I believe this scene was taking out because it is not necessary in the big picture of Harry killing Voldemort.  It would have been a good scene to leave in, but because of time restraints it was taken out.  

Journal 3

I remember reading the Harry Potter books, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Godfather, and The Devil Wears Prada and many more. All these books were an interesting read and the movies were great.

I like the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory not because of Johnny Depp (even though he’s a great actor) but because it felt like every character had come to life. Each character suited the actor and the acting was phenomenal. The way the factory was showcased was great. The Oompaloompas looked very realistic.

Some things like the ending were a bit different and Willy Wonka’s past life was not shown in the 1971 movie but was expanded in the 2005 movie. Whereas there is little mention of Wonka’s past life in the book. Both movies were mostly based on the book because of Dahl’s clever plot. Any major deviation from the book would have resulted in the failure of the movies. People would not watch a movie that is vaguely based on Dahl’s book as they read the book when they were young and any changes would have spoilt the fun.

The book raises many issues like greed, robbery, inheritance, respect, and being a gentleman. The time the book was written, the law and order was not very effective. Moreover, people don’t usually follow ‘manners’ very well. The movies retained a very big chunk of teaching ‘etiquettes’ to their young audience.

Knowing the context helped me to understand the significance of each dialogue and helped me understand the plot better. It made me realize that books are written on the basis of what happens in the world rather than just ideas in the author’s mind. Thinking of the context made me appreciate the books more. I also learnt something from them rather than just being tools of entertainment.

Journal 3

My favorite movie and novel of all time is Jurassic Park. Originally written by Michael Crichton it was adapted into a movie by Steven Spielberg in 1992. For those of you who don't know, Jurassic Park is about an island off the coast of Costa Rica where a team of scientists cloned dinosaurs from DNA found in fossilized mosquitoes. A group of people are brought in to give their opinions on the whole set up and when a hurricane comes in and knocks out the power the people are trapped there along with a bunch of loose meat-eating dinosaurs. The movie adaptation was made purely for the sake of entertainment, where as the novel goes into depth about the process in which the dinosaurs were cloned and how the fossilized dino DNA was crossed with amphibian DNA to create a baby dinosaur. The novel also brings into light the many ethical and moral issues that could arise from something like bringing back extinct animals, which help create many undertones that are seen throughout the novel. Since the movie adaptation was made for entertainment purposes, Spielberg had to cut out many of the underlying themes that Crichton worked into his novel. I love Spielberg's take the novel and it is still my favorite movie of all time, but I would have liked to see him follow the novel's storyline a little more closely just so I can picture what I read in the book on a silver screen. The fact that Spielberg had to alter the storyline to appeal to audiences tells me something about the context of the novel. It tells me that maybe not all audiences would understand the themes or issues that the novel brings up and that when you look at it, it is very scientifically based and requires some understanding of DNA and biology to fully grasp some of the main ideas.

Journal 3

One of my favorite books, Dear John by Nicholas Sparks, was created into a movie. The movie kept the main parts of the movie, where John enlisted in the army after having no dreams of doing anything else. He then meets a girl, Savannah, who inspires him to do something with his life. They have to write letters to each other in order to stay in contact.

However, the producers did change the ending. In the book, Savannah ends up marrying her best friend who overcomes cancer through the graciousness of John's donation. In the movie, Savannah marries the same person, but he ends up dying and her and John have another chance to reunite. This shows how our society expects to see a good ending in a movie. Customers tend to wish for the happy ending in a movie, no matter how predictable it is.

The main issue towards the end was who Savannah should choose: her former lover or her best friend. This kind of drama attracts viewers today. There is nothing more exciting than a love triangle and we live for this type of "reality" entertainment. It is part of our culture to choose the one you love and create a future together.

It is important to read a text with its context in mind because a book does not hide or sugar-coat anything. Texts express raw material and really make you feel what the characters are feeling. There is always a theme or message to a text, and by keeping its context in mind you will discover the true meaning.

Journal 3

Describe one your favorite film adaptations (like we did with The Scarlet Letter and Easy A). What did the adaptation change? What did it keep? Why? What issues are raised, are how do they relate to the specific time, audience, or culture? What does this tell you about the importance of reading a text with its context in mind?
I like the adaption of The Time Traveler's Wife.  The book was amazing, I couldn't put it down; which compelled me to see the movie.  The adaptation changed some scenes and characters which is quite normal in an adaptation but a major change was the ending.  In the book after Henry's death, Clare finds a letter from him asking her not to wait for him, and revealing that she'll see him one last time in her old age. As the years pass, Henry visits Alba frequently, but never Clare. The novel ends with Clare and Henry's final meeting, when Clare is 82 and Henry is 43. In the movie there is no letter, and no scene in which Clare is old. In the movie ending, Henry visits nine-year-old Alba in the meadow behind Clare's childhood home; while they talk, Alba tells Charisse and Gomez's kids to run and inform Clare that Henry is there. Clare rushes to the meadow to see him (this is in an approximate re-creation of the museum scene from the book), and they are able to embrace and kiss before Henry vanishes. The adaptation keeps the main ideas of the scenes (for the most part) and tweaks them to what will relate better to our fast paced society. The issue raised is of timeless love. Clare and Henry's love defy time and space. The changes made just adapt the ideas to a our society which has become very based on instant rewards so in the movie instead of dragging out Clare and Henry's last meeting they make it sooner on in her life. This tells me that the context surrounding a text is very important because it can change the meaning or reason of something that happens in the text.

Journal 3

One of my favorite film adaptations is Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I watched the film first which I liked a lot and peaked my interest into reading the book. The movie captivated me with the use of humor and creativity so I wanted to see what the book had to offer. After reading the book I came to the conclusion that the book was better than the movie for many reasons. The main reason is because the movie altered certain parts of the book.

When the book came out in 1971 had impact. It represented a portion of the American mindset. The book was more than just a story about drug use it was about the American society for that time. The author Hunter S. Thompson showed how Americans at that time had high hopes for the “American dream” but that dream can come crushing down with American reality. One thing that caught my attention was how in the book the main characters say they are searching for the “American dream” many more times than the movie references. Another difference I noticed was how the book describes certain situations and characters. While in the movie certain situations are set up by visuals and don’t need to be explained the explanations in the novel offer detail that I didn’t pick up in the movie.

The movie is thrill ride with the main goal of entertaining the audience while the book offers much more than that. It challenges the reader intellectually and will change the way one thinks about the world. Reading the book allowed me to pick up on the little things that slipped by so fast throughout the movie. It is very important to read the text with the content in mind. If I read this book with no clue about the time period or what the “American dream” was I would think that this book was just about two guys going to Vegas and trying as many drugs as they possibly can while it means much more than that.

I am a huge Harry Potter fan! So when Warner Brothers decided to turn them into movies at first I was thrilled and then I became a little nervous. When most books are turned into movies the books are completely ruined. But with the Harry Potter movies they have done a great job keeping all of the main events and not completely changing the books. I feel like when you have a book like Twilight and there isn't much substance to it anyways creating a movie would be a difficult task. But with Harry Potter the writing is done with such description and imagination it makes creating a movie an easier job.

Journal 3

Of course, Twilight is one of my favorite film adaptations. What teenage girl doesn't like a buff and chivalrous immortal? So I thought.

Don't get me wrong, Edward is an exceptional figure, but shouldn't there be more to him than glittering skin and an enticing smile? The movies have opened my eyes to what I was overlooking in the literature, and therefore have me questioning my praise for the saga.

Summit Entertainment delivered on the statuesque idea of Edward, which, I'm sure, has contributed a great deal to Twilight's success. Also, surprisingly, they managed to stick incredibly close to the actual events and dialogue. My only disappointment would be how glamorous Bella is portrayed. (In the book she is described as "plain.") Other than that, I am content with Summit's efforts; content with the fact that all the characters possess "skin deep" beauty.

But what else is there? A couple heroic acts, raging hormones, questions of mortality...?

What was this all really about? Well, that's about it. Good looking people. The movie industry utilized this aspect of the text most because that is how western culture operates at present: We strive to improve our outer beauty, and we look to appropriate figures to set the bar, like RPatz and Kristin Stewert.

The main issue raised, I think, is whether or not attraction is based on non-secondary qualities. Today, for a culture where youth is hungrily desired and is a generation responsible for solving new world problems, it makes sense that juvenescence and beauty are important.

I think any reader of Twilight, in the future (or if they could, in the past,) needs to consider that physical perfection has dominated the western culture for much of the late 20th/early 21st century. For example, imagine Aristotle picking up a copy of Twilight. What would it mean to him? What does being good looking have to do with realizing the self? He would have to understand what a pertinent theme "beauty" is to our time and culture. Likewise, how could our culture begin to understand how old age is preferred in eastern culture, not for their beauty necessarily, but for their wisdom?

All in all, I think Twilight serves its purpose as a fantasy of western culture- happiness orbiting around chiseled jaws, prominent cheek bones, and a slim physique. However, it's hard not to buy into it. That's just how we've grown up.

Journal 3

I am not a reader, but when I was introduced to the Twilight series I could not put the books down. I watched the Twilight movie first, which sparked my interest to start reading the books. The storyline caught my interest so I wanted to get the full story from the books. After reading the book Twilight, I realized how much better it was compared to the movie. Besides the bad animation effects, there were several scenes that were altered between the book and movie. In the movie, Bella arrives in Forks and is introduced to Billy and Jacob Black right away. In the book, Jacob and Billy are not introduced until later. Also, Laurent, James, and Victoria never kill anyone in the first book, but kill two people in the movie. I feel these scenes were added to create more action and introduce the characters more quickly. The movie stuck closely to the basic plot of the book, but failed to really show the audience how passionate Edward and Bella's love was. The book is much more descriptive and allows the reader to feel their love in a deeper way. Both the book and the movie are set in modern time, but flashback to before Edward became a vampire in the 1900's. Twilight raises the issues of morality, sex, and love, which in turn, relates to the particular audience of teenage girls. I feel this tells me that it is important to read the text with the context in mind. If I were to get caught up it the plot of the story and oversee what the context was really saying, I may be misled and take the context too literally.

Journal 3

While the Chronicles of Narnia is by not my favorite movie, I do think the adaptation of similar stories in the bible and the film are rather interesting. The white witch in Narnia symbolizes the devil, the lion (Aslan) represents God, and the four children represents some of Gods followers. In addition to the similarities in the characters there are many scenes which can be related directly to biblical stories. For example, when Aslan sacrificed himself to the enemy it was similar to how Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins. There are many parallels that can be made between the Chronicles of Narnia and biblical stories, however there were a lot of things that changed to make this movie. Obviously, most of the characters are talking animals unlike the bible and while Aslan is an essential character to the plot, the four children are considered the main characters considering they are in every scene. Where as in the bible God is clearly the "main character" if you will. Between the movie and the book, it is clear that the context of a text is very important. While most may only see talking animals in the movie, there is clearly a story that relates directly to the bible. I think paying attention to the context is very important in this case to develop a complete understanding of the text as a whole.

Journal 3

Describe one your favorite film adaptations (like we did with The Scarlet Letter and Easy A). What did the adaptation change? What did it keep? Why? What issues are raised, are how do they relate to the specific time, audience, or culture? What does this tell you about the importance of reading a text with its context in mind?

Due: Tuesday, Feb 8