As I continue to read Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, I notice more and more things that is different with the movie. I'm am one of the people who watched the movie first before reading the book. I'm now going to finish all of them before the second part of the 7th movie comes out. Anyway, I think that they are very different, but not necessarily in bad ways.
People always say that the book is always better than the movie. That's usually true, especially with the last four Harry Potter Books I've read. In this one, I believe that they did a pretty good job. I think they chose good parts from the book, that would be good for a movie. Of course they can't put everything in because then it would be a 5 hour movie. They basically got the whole plot right, and that's what they're supposed to do. I mean, I don't like how people go into a movie expecting it to be bad. WHY WOULD YOU GO THEN? It's not gonna be the same as the book for christ's sake. And then they complain about not adding in things from the movie. I know it could be frustrating, but really who cares? it's not like they're gonna change it. Obviously they put it in for a reason. I'm not really defending the Harry Potter movie. I'm just saying that making a big fuss out of it is kinda ridiculous.
As I read the book I see more and more that is slightly changed. At times I almost got annoyed but I caught myself. The author is a part worker on the movie, so she must have had a say in it. So if she lets it happen, I think I can too. It's not big things though. It's not like Voldemort is a girl in the movie. It's more like how things are done or happened. For example, when Ron thinks he drinks the liquid luck, it doesn't exactly happen how it does in the book, but it's fine. I just believe that people who obsess over movies from books are cry babies.
And this is not only with the Harry Potter series. it's with all kinds of Book Movies. But don't get me wrong. There are some great movies made from books, for example Fahrenheit 451 is one of my favorite books and movies. Some things are changed, but I just don't care enough to complain. It entertained me and that's what it's supposed to do.
If you have an argument I'd be happy to debate with you.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Harry Potter #6 Response (Possible Spoiler Alert)
I just recently started Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince and I'm about 280 pages in. Something I've been thinking about is the issues: insecurity and acceptance. Voldemort and all his death eaters go crazy over the fact that they are all purebloods, and everyone else should be killed, when really Voldemort was the son of a muggle and so called "squib". This confuses me, and makes me think about whether the Death Eaters would care if they knew.
Voldemort, aslo known as Tom Riddle must be very insecure to lead a pack of pureblood, ferocious, murderers on a quest to kill all non-purebloods when he is not pureblood himself. He's obviously denying it, and just hates the idea of his childhood and parents. In real life, people deny what they can't accept all the time. Which leads me to the idea of his death eaters accepting him. I wonder if they would accept him as one of them after all he's done in their movement.
If they were to accept him, which I would really believe, they would have to accept all the other mudbloods and halfbreeds, which I would completely not believe. These people are thieving killers whom are obviously deranged. But this makes me think about acceptance in general. Acceptance is by the individual, no?
Racists don't all of a sudden accept other races. That's who they are. We can all conclude that racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, but where does this get us? It's mostly due to the ignorance isn't it? And this leads me back to insecurity. Sometimes homophobes are insecure and actually gay themselves, but as an individual they think it's ok. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they can't be against it. So now they think that they are fine, but the rest of the homosexuals are bad. The problem with this, is they aren't realizing that there are other individuals who feel the same way. So they are alright too all of a sudden, but the rest are still bad?
I don't exactly know where I'm going with this but I know that somethings funny here. As I read on hopefully I will be able to write more.
Voldemort, aslo known as Tom Riddle must be very insecure to lead a pack of pureblood, ferocious, murderers on a quest to kill all non-purebloods when he is not pureblood himself. He's obviously denying it, and just hates the idea of his childhood and parents. In real life, people deny what they can't accept all the time. Which leads me to the idea of his death eaters accepting him. I wonder if they would accept him as one of them after all he's done in their movement.
If they were to accept him, which I would really believe, they would have to accept all the other mudbloods and halfbreeds, which I would completely not believe. These people are thieving killers whom are obviously deranged. But this makes me think about acceptance in general. Acceptance is by the individual, no?
Racists don't all of a sudden accept other races. That's who they are. We can all conclude that racism is wrong, sexism is wrong, homophobia is wrong, but where does this get us? It's mostly due to the ignorance isn't it? And this leads me back to insecurity. Sometimes homophobes are insecure and actually gay themselves, but as an individual they think it's ok. Just because they are gay doesn't mean they can't be against it. So now they think that they are fine, but the rest of the homosexuals are bad. The problem with this, is they aren't realizing that there are other individuals who feel the same way. So they are alright too all of a sudden, but the rest are still bad?
I don't exactly know where I'm going with this but I know that somethings funny here. As I read on hopefully I will be able to write more.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Rereading A ClockWork Orange.
POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT
I recently watched this movie so I decided I wanted to read this book again. After reading about half way through, one of the issues that came up in my head is what it means to be a good leader. Alex claims to be the leader, but he makes decisions in the book that make me think otherwise.
In the book George, Pete, and Dim decide that there should be no leader. This angers Alex, so he basically beats the crap out of his gang members and stabs Dim. He believes this makes him a leader. If he was a real leader, I think he would take charge, but not like that. I think he should have taken charge but he definitely went to far. So now I think that yes, he is being a leader, although not in the best way.
What you would think of when you hear a leader in the real world is like a general or something. Generals take charge, give orders, and go through with them. I believe that's a good leader. A leader gets things done right.
In the book when Alex gets arrested he starts to blame his droogs (gang members) and says that they made him do it. That definitely does not make a good leader. I think a good leader would take responsibility for what has happened, whether they actually did it or not. A good leader wouldn't have ratted out his/her followers. So now, even though Alex is taking charge, giving orders, and getting things done, he still doesn't take responsibility.
So for now, in this moment of the book, I decided what a good leader is, and how Alex is definitely not one. A good leader takes charge, gives orders, gets things done, and takes responsibility. The responsibility part was the only thing Alex was missing. Maybe he wasn't cut out for the job. And now, the consequences have fallen on his head. I'm just wondering about his droogs though. Maybe it wasn't him who was the bad leader. Maybe it was the the droogs who were bad droogs.
I recently watched this movie so I decided I wanted to read this book again. After reading about half way through, one of the issues that came up in my head is what it means to be a good leader. Alex claims to be the leader, but he makes decisions in the book that make me think otherwise.
In the book George, Pete, and Dim decide that there should be no leader. This angers Alex, so he basically beats the crap out of his gang members and stabs Dim. He believes this makes him a leader. If he was a real leader, I think he would take charge, but not like that. I think he should have taken charge but he definitely went to far. So now I think that yes, he is being a leader, although not in the best way.
What you would think of when you hear a leader in the real world is like a general or something. Generals take charge, give orders, and go through with them. I believe that's a good leader. A leader gets things done right.
In the book when Alex gets arrested he starts to blame his droogs (gang members) and says that they made him do it. That definitely does not make a good leader. I think a good leader would take responsibility for what has happened, whether they actually did it or not. A good leader wouldn't have ratted out his/her followers. So now, even though Alex is taking charge, giving orders, and getting things done, he still doesn't take responsibility.
So for now, in this moment of the book, I decided what a good leader is, and how Alex is definitely not one. A good leader takes charge, gives orders, gets things done, and takes responsibility. The responsibility part was the only thing Alex was missing. Maybe he wasn't cut out for the job. And now, the consequences have fallen on his head. I'm just wondering about his droogs though. Maybe it wasn't him who was the bad leader. Maybe it was the the droogs who were bad droogs.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)