The Golden Compass, the first in His Dark Material Trilogy by Phillip Pullman, was recently made into a movie, starring a bunch of big named actors and actresses, including Nicole Kidman and Daniel Craig.
The book, if you haven't heard of it, is amazing. All three of them are actually. They're set in a sort of other world, thats kind of parallel to ours, except there, our souls are outside our bodies and take the shape of animals. The souls are called Daemons.
The movie does not esatblish this, which to anyone who hasn't read the book is very confusing. Why are there talking animal beside people? Why is that leopard not eating the guy, but instead having a conversation with him?
The acting isn't terrible, but if no one has any idea what's going on, I highly doubt that people will care weather or not the acting is good or bad.
Here's the trailer:
It's sad when you can understand more from the trailer than the movie. The movie would have been good, but nothing during the movie was really explained that well. Needless to say, the two other parts of the series most likely wont be completed. But really, read the books. They're worth the read, the movie definitely not. But you can't win em all.
A really big difference, one that bothered me was that there was this boy, a friend of Lyra (the main character), his name was Billy Costa, they combined him with another character. Here's the thing, that would be fine if it wasn't the whole fact that one lived, and one died. They killed this character that was supposed to live and return to his family. Unnecessary.
The movie also bounces around the settings waaaay too fast. I understand time constraints, but they could have at least pretneded that this took days, instead of seconds.
Anyways, obviously the book is better than this movie.
Disney's Hercules, a fantastic movie if I do say so myself, is a story that is loosely (let me stress loosely) on Hesiod's Theogony.
Obviously there are some major differences, such as the the Theogony mainly talking about Zeus and the births of the gods. Also, that Hercules is called Herakles and doesn't really ever turn mortal, although it is referened in the line, "Blessed is he! His exploits all finished, he is now among the gods, griefless and ageless forever." So maybe there is the possibly a chance he wasn't always immortal? I'm not sure. I'll probably have to look more into that.
Basically though, the Theogony isn't really a book that should be made into a childrens movie if they're going to be exact. It's very graphis, I guess you could say, considering Zeus swallows his children a couple of times... and also because most of the epic talks about giving birth to different gods. SO. It was very necesary to change it, although Disney changed it a lot.
The similarities though are that a problem arises between the current gods, such as Zeus, Hera, Hermes, etc, and the Titans (who are actually older gods, not giant monsters). But in order to defeat the Titans, Zeus uses lightnening bolts and the powers of the Earth to defeat them.
In the movie, Hercules, Zeus ends uip failing and Hercules has to save them. It is possible though that Hercules is a continuation of the Theogony, where the Titans escape from their prisons, although at the time that would happen, Hercules is actually already a god and married to Hebe.
Either way though, the movie isn't really accurate, although it does introduce children to a different, ancient culture and their gods.
Upon comparing the two, it is a reach to say that Hercules is Theogony, but it is based off of it, very loosely based off of it, although it is widely different.
Since the movie incorporates fantastic music such as:
and:
Even thought the poem is very good, well the translation I have read is, it just isn't the same as Hercules and the music and Disney's very inaccurate rendition of it.
So i the end, I'm giving the win to Hercules even though it's very inaccurate.
This week I'm changing the blog up a little bit. This is due to a lack of ideas unless I want to rant about how TERRIBLE this one movie was.
Here's a list of books that have been made into movies that I have not read, but seen:
Lord of the Rings
I Am Number Four
Pretty Little Liars (a show, but same concept)
P.S. I Love You
The Notebook
It's Kind of a Funny Story
I feel like a failure having seen a movie but yet never reading it's original intention. For one, I Am Number Four was completely cheesy, but yet I still liked it. The book has to be better. So far they always have. Unfortunately I've heard it's pretty predictable, but really so it Sarah Dessen's books, kind of, and I completely adore those.
Lord of the Rings: I remember attempting read the Fellowship of the Ring in seventh grade and I could not get over them spelling jewels like "jools". Maybe things have changed? Ha. Well. How can the books compare to the movies when the books don't have Orlando Bloom killing giant elephants? Or Viggo Mortenson pretty mch owning everyone and everything. But maybe Frodo will be less of a pain in the butt?
The Notebook: I don't want to bawl. But really, I've read Dear John and The Last Song. Could it be that bad?
Pretty Little Liars: WHO IS A?
P.S. I Love You: The book doesn't have Gerard Butler even though he's dead... And I love the movie. I mean can it really top it? Maybe... Possibly... Probably.
It's Kind of a Funny Story: This one came out recently, and to be honest I had no idea it was even a book until appoximately 20 minutes ago. I will read this.. Guarenteed.
This was probably a little lame, but I highly recommend these movies. They're amazing. Well to me. And maybe minus I Am Number Four unless you like cheesy lines of "Loriens only fall in love once." and bunch of plot holes... Still. The rest of the movies really are fantastic. Highly recommended.
Growing up, my favorite movie was Peter Pan, and later, it became one of my favorite books. The Disney movie, though great in it's own respect, follows the book very little. But recently, in 2003, a new version of the movie was released with Jeremy Sumpter playing Peter.
Many people have seen this movie, but many haven't. I do recommend it because it uses some exact quotes from the book which really allows people to really get a feel for J.M. Barrie's classic novel.
What I really love about this movie is that it talks about the hidden kiss, which is a kiss that every woman has for their true love. The whole idea behind the hidden kiss is cute, and it kind of brings a whole different idea that I have never seen before. It suggests that this type of kiss, reserved for the person in the right hand corner of the womans mouth is unattainable to anyone else; that this kiss is the womans to give and cannot be taken.
There are differences, ones that don't really hinder the story very much. For one, there's the ending, which is when Peter comes to get Wendy for spring cleaning, yet she is a grown up, so in her stead he takes her daughter Jane. Disney, in fact, made the second movie on this ending, where they make a movie on Jane's story.
The story of Peter Pan itself is a story about growing up, but never forgetting or keeping that one boy that never grows up inside us all. I think the movie does a fantastic job of showing this theme. Another theme in it is that to live would be an awfully big adventure. Illustrated through the daring scenes of swordfights, but most of all by Wendy choosing to live and grow old.
The character in the movie, Wendy, I don't particularly like. I think she comes off too annoying and doesn't truly show Wendy's amazement at Neverland. It's like she's too familiar with it. Peter Pan though, is accurately portrayed, in my opinion, as he flies and barely is serious, as is the true character. In the moments he must be serious, I think he does a really great job.
I think that it's obvious that this will go to the book since the movie doesn't get all of JM Barrie's narration, which in itself is great and truly helps to further tell the story, but the movie does a really great job of depicting Neverland, the Lost Boys, and Peter and Tinkerbell.
Nicholas Sparks is known for his heart wrenthing tales of love and life. His book, Dear John, is no different.
The book is about a soldier named John Tyree who falls for a college student named Savannah Lynn Curtis over his brief leave. The movie obviously differentiates from the book.
For one, Savannah is supposed to be brunette. Maybe it's because I'm brunette that it bothers me, but Amanda Seyfried is not. It's not really that big of a deal, but I really think they changed the element of her character. I felt like she wasn;t as sure in all of her decisions, as different and proud of her morals as she is in the book. I mean honestly, the girls practically a saint in the book. She builds houses and is as unslutty as they come. Although, shes not slutty in the movie, and they do mention briefly about it (the house building I mean). But seriously, she dedicates her whole summer to building them.
John Tyree I think is depicted quite accurately. This also could be in part because I think he's great. Just great. But really, John is this soldier, who used to be kind of a bad influence, but cleaned up his act and joined the ilitary because, "it's what I needed at the time". I think Channing Tatum really just has that look, that can depict this without words. Probably a biased view, but still.
A character that I think was the best in the movie, and the book, is John's dad. He's just so adorable and even though he's a little different, he makes you love him with his adorableness and sweet disposition.
A random thing I really don't understand why they changed is that in the book Tim has a brother with Autism that he takes care of since his parents died, and in the movie they made it his son. Honestly, there was no point.
I think the thing they changed the most is the ending. The thing that wraps the book up most, getting the message of how far a person would go for the person they truly love. In the movie when Tim, the man that Savannah evetually ends up marrying while John is away, dies they meet somewhere and hug implying that they get back together in the end: a happy ending.
In the book though, John let's her go to be with the man that needs her to take care of him. The book ends with him sitting on a hill, watching her and remembering what they had. Maybe it's not a perfect happy ending, but its the real ending, and in my opinion it was amazing:
"She pauses then and crosses her arms, glancing over her shoulder to make sure no one has followed her. Finally, she seems to relax. And then I feel as if I'm witnessing a miracle, as ever slowly she raises her face toward the moon. I watch her drink in the sight, sensing the flood of memories she's unleashed and wanting nothing more than to let her know I'm here. But instead I stay where I am and stare up at the moon as well. And for the briefest instant, it almost feels like we're together again."
The book isn't about happy endings, being with the ones you love, it's about doing what it takes for the one you love to be happy, even if it comes at the price of your own.
But see the movie, because even though it changes the ending, I still think it's well worth the watch. Bring some tissues too.
The last Harry Potter's, number 4-7, are easily the saddest, most epic of his story. Harry endures a number of deaths and truly grows up in these. Again, I have read all of these multiple times.
The books are all the longest, so a lot of them is cut out, but the main point is there. Voldemort has returned and it is up to Harry, witht he help of Hermione, Ron and the Order of the Phoenix to stop the killing and the coming to power of He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named.
Not only are these books the most action filled, they're also the best movies.
The easy differences between the books and the movies:
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire:
-In the scene where they go to the Quidditch World Cup they don't ever meet Seamus and Dean there, like in the book.
It also didn't include the house elf, Winky, who eventually joins Dobby as free elves, altough she isn't quite as keen on this idea.
They also completely ignore Hermione starting S.P.E.W. (Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare) and leaving mittens, hats, and such for the elves to free them.
Hermione also eventually captures Rita Skeeter's animagus, form a beetle, in a jar to keep her from writing anymore horrible things (although this eventually doesn't work).
Also, I'm going to have to add that I think Robert Pattinson was a much better Cedric Diggory than he is an Edward Cullen.
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix:
-The longest of the books, this one HAD to cut out a lot of things, although I'm going to have to say I would have settled for a longer movie with this one.
First off, when Harry goes to Grimmauld Place, he never has to clean out all of the room to get rid of te dust, doxies, boggart, etc. Eventually when Mrs. Weasley goes to get rid of the boggart, Harry walks in on her crying hysterically as each of her family member flashes by, laying on the ground dead in front of her. Then Harry sees himself dead in front of her. This scene shows how much Harry is a part of the Weasley's family, that he does have a family, just not by blood.
-It also doesn't do the whole scene witht he Marauders, it just flashes through.
-It lacks most of the fight at the Ministry of magic, where Hermione almost dies, Ginny twists her ankle, Neville is incredibly brave and break his nose, and where Ron is attacked by brains.
-They don't do justice to Fred and George when they leave Hogwarts. In the book they turn te entrance into a swamp like place and it's so much better than just fireworks.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince:
-This book really lacks the development of Harry and Ginny's relationship, the rumor of the hungarian horntail tattoo that I thought was funny.
-The worst part of this movie though is that it completely is missing the whole entire fight scene in the castle, which is just stupid since it makes the movie less interesting.
-They don't have the scene of Dumbledore coming to get Harry from Privet Drive
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows:
This movie was co-produced by J.K. Rowling, and was split into two parts which is probably why it stick so close to the book.
Really nothing in this book can be left out. But they did leave a couple things out in the first part:
-Dean Thomas is left out. Fred and George's radio show is left out. They don't show the ghoul in the attic pretending to be Ron with Spattergroit to keep the ministry from questioning his family of his whereabouts.
-They also leave out Harry's little birthday celebration (very little), they also don't have Lupin come to Grimmald place to ask to join there quest for the horcruxes.
-Kreacher is never given any redemption (like in the book) and he never tells Regulus's tale of turning back from the bad side nor does Harry find the picture of him on the toy broomstick and the letter from his mother to Sirius.
-They don't show Hermione literally trying to punch and beat Ron up after he comes back. Harry eventually has to cast a Shield Charm to keep them apart.
-The greatest thing about this movie though, is the way they represent Dobby. They don't leave out his parts and his death is so sad. SO freaking sad.
None of the books really capture any quidditch, but it's still a good part of the story that makes it seem more like a normal (ish) school where sports are still a big part of the education.
Really though, these were probably unfair comparisons. These books far outdo the movies in many, many aspects so the winner is... the boooks. Although the 7th one is amazing.
My favorite book series has been Harry Potter since I was in fourth grade. J.K. Rowling ws able to create an entire world from her imagination, and what's more, create characters that the reader's get to grow up with and actually get to know.
Since there are seven books in the series, this blog will only be about the first three, The Sorcerer's Stone, The Chamber of Secrets and the Prisoner of Azkaban. With no exagerration here, I have read each of those books at least four times. Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban reaches the highest of any book with a grand total of eleven times.
Why should I reread the books? Well first, because I first started reading them in fourth grade, second, because everytime you reread them you get to find things you never even noticed before, third because I like to refresh before I watch the movies. Again.
Almost everyone I have talked to has read Harry Potter, so I won't bore you with the plot of the books. Here are a list of my favorite scenes that the movies don't show though:
Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone:
-When Harry, Ron, and Hermione all go to stop "Snape" from stealing the Sorcerer's Stone, they don't show a couple of the tasks that Harry has to solve before he can enter into the room with the Mirror of Erised.
The first is Snape's: Harry has to figure out which of the potions he should take before moving on to the next room: one will kill you, while the other will not.
Another is the Defense Against the Dark Arts one, or Professor Quirrell's: Harry is supposed to fight a troll, but since Quirrell had already bee through there so the troll was just lying on the ground, already knocked unconscious.
Maybe those weren't necesary to the plot of the book, but I thought that it really helped you see the intelligence of Hermione, and the bravery of Harry.
Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets:
-My favorite part in this entire book was the Valentine's Day part, where Harry gets chased around by a (I think it was an elf?) dressed as a cherub that Ginny sent Harry. I thought this part was so funny and it showed how Ginny liked Harry (foreshadowing future event?). They completely disregarded this scene though.
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban:
-This was my favorite book, is my favorite book, of the series. I really love the Marauder's and I really like how you start to get to know them a little bit in this book. Sirius, the "massed murderer" is revealed to be his godfather, and Lupin is shown as James's friend. What was missing in this book was any description of how they new Black betrayed the Potters or a description of the Fidelius charm, or how Sirius escaped from Azkaban (his animagus form).
Another issue I have with the movies is that they leave out characters like Peeves the Poltergeist (who is amazing) and Pigwidgeon (Ron's owl). They also put Padma and Parvati Patil in the same house, when one of them is in Ravenclaw, and the other is in Gryffindor.
The first chapter in the book is my favorite in the entire series. It's the chapter where Harry is dropped off at the Dursley's and I think that the movie did a really great job of accurately portraying this scene.
Here are the trailers for all three of them:
I think the movies did the best the could for book's of this length (particularly number 3), and are really good but again, I think that the books indeed pass up the movies because you get to know the character's far better.
Tucker Max, author of the book I Hope They Serve Beer in He(can I say this word on here?)ll, has recieved wide criticism on his book. It is demeaning to women and promotes promiscuity among males searching to be like him. I'm going to be honest here: I liked this terrible book. I thought it was funny, crude of course, but funny nonetheless.
Seeing as this book has appeared on the blog about the differences between a book's movie, this was made into a movie. The movie greatly changed up the book; it took a book that pretty mch just described scenarios that happened to Mr. Max and created a plotline that captured these moments, but also gave them some sort of relevance and linked them all together.
If you've read the book, you know that Tucker Max is hardly angelic and he even states on the back of his book, "I am an a[y]hole, I get excessively drunk at innapropriate times, disregard social norms, indulge every whim, ignore the consequences of my actions, mock idiots and posers," etc. He feels no remorse for doing what he does and he simply just keeps on doing it. By no means am I condoning this behavior. I just think it's funny to read; I think he's a terrible person too.
But the movie gives some of the characters more of a personality than just their drunk ones. It actually shows how his actions affect the ones that he's supposed to care about (like his friends). In the movie he actually shows remorse for what happens after his friends become angry with him and makes an apology toast at the wedding of his friend.
The trailer honestly gives a pretty good jist of what he's like in the book, and in the movie:
If you are easily offended or don't want to read about a guy who might possibly me completely lacking any type of morals, I do not reccomend this movie OR book to you. At all.
Considering that in the movie Tucker Max might have some morals and that in the book there really is no doubt in my mind that he is unethical, I give the win to the movie this time. Please someone help us if guys start to try and act like this.
Channel 14 is the PSU movie channel, and because it's February, the month of Valentine's Day, three movies (maybe four if you count Easy A) about love are playing: Titanic, P.S. I Love You, and Pride and Prejudice. Pride and Prejudice is probably one of the most known and beloved books of all time. There are a couple different movie versions; my personal favorite is the newest one with Keira Knightley and Matthew MacFadyen.
The movie closely follows Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy’s twists and turns in love. In my opinion, it accurately depicts the main plot of the book and I am really quite a fan.
But there are some things that I feel should’ve been done better. For instance, the Mr. Bennett in the movie is very serious and somber, almost as if he’s just tired of the antics of his wife and the stress of having to marry off his five daughters so they aren’t thrown from his house after his death. The Mr. Bennett in the book is more lighthearted; he’s constantly teasing his wife and his younger daughters.
An example of this humor in the book would be: “I would not trust you so near it as Eastbourne for fifty pounds! No, Kitty, I have at least learnt to be cautious, and you will feel the effects of it. No officer is ever to enter into my house again, nor even to pass through the village. Balls will be absolutely prohibited, unless you stand up with one of your sisters. And you are never to stir out of doors till you can prove that you have spent ten minutes of every day in a rational manner.”
Obviously he’s kidding when he tells his second youngest daughter this, but she takes him serious, and he just keeps with the jokes.
Another difference is at the end of the movie they add in a scene of Mr. and Mrs. Darcy after they’re married. I really think this is a good addition to the plot because it allows you to see them after their marriage, and plus it’s really cute.
Unfortunately, I love them both so much so deciding which one is better is really hard for me. But I think I'll have to go with the book once again because it leaves nothing out, and tells the complete story of every emotion and truly shows his pride and her prejudice.
How to Deal is a movie that is based off of two of Sarah Dessens book, Someone Like You and That Summer. Generally, I don't like it when movies change up a book, adding things that shouldn't be in there and taking away things that I think should be. But I think the producers did a fairly decent job with the film, although it is sort of cheesy and predictable. It's cute.
The story of Someone Like You really is a story about best friends and the trials they went through. When Halley's best friend, Scarlet, get's pregnant, Halley is there for her and ready to do whatever it takes since the baby's father died in a motorcycle accident. But eventually Halley meets a boy named Macon and becomes enraptured in a story of love and eventually heartbreak.
That Summer, is a book about a girl named Haven whos's trying to accept who she is. Her sister's getting married to a guy who she doesn't like, her parent's are divorvced, and her father's getting remarried.
The movie makes it more of a romance when really it's about two girls trying to find their way and realizing that sometimes you have to accept who you are, and also that "life is an awful, ugly place to not have a best friend."
I really do like the movie, but it's not anything special. It has Mandy Moore and Trent Ford:
But it skewed the meaning of the books. They're not about love, in face Macon and Halley fall in love, but (this is a spoiler so skip this little paragraph if you want to read the book) they don't make it because he can't be there for her. Even after he almost get her killed in a car accident. He doesn't show up to the hospital, nothing, not even a phone call. So rightly, she ends it and refocuses on her best friend who truly needed her right then. In the movie though, Macon comes back. He comes to the hospital and asks for her back, and instead of Halley being strong and realizing that she needs someone that will be there for her, she takes him back.
I'm going to have to give this win to the books again because you can't change a meaning of a book and have it still be the same.
The book series, Twilight by Stephanie Meyer, has recently been made into a million dollar, maybe billion dollar, movie franchise. Why? Because the books were amazing. But let's face it, the movies are absolutely awful.
The actress that plays Bella Swan is Kristen Stewert. People have claimed that the reason people hate Stewert for this part is because it's not who they would have chosen as the representation of Bella. Let's get real. Who would choose an awkward actress that seems to take at least four pauses in one sentence. Really? And please, Edward Cullen could have been a little more rounded here. He does do more than confess his love and stare at Bella. What happened to the actual conversations in the book? The movie consists of a lot Bella taking deep breaths, music by Muse and Edward creeping on the love of his life. Oh, and let's not forget in the later books they've added in a shirtless boy. Not that I'm complaining about that.
Don't think that I hate Twilight because of my opinion of the book. Trust me, I have had deep conversations with my best friend over who is best for Bella. I'm a true Twilight fan. Team Jacob and all. The connection that Bella and Edward had in the book, while not really realistic, is really sweet and well written, and I cried my eyes out in New Moon when he left her.
I'll admit that Eclipse was actually pretty good, but Twilight and New Moon were terrible. What happened to Edward's sarcasm? Or Bella's realistic clumsiness? Seriously, could she trip on that flat surface anymore purposefully? Bella isn't supposed to stutter. She's actually quite aware of herself (maybe not in a physical sense). She knows what she's saying and she has other emotions other than freaked out and nervous.
The movie has also created a giant hate group. What is this? They haven't even read the books, but since the movie has been so terrible, they automatically judge the book as being terrible too. Let's get this straight: that is not the case. I once had a teacher that kept hearing about these wonderful books and actually took the liberty of reading them. He admitted to my class that these books were "actually really good. Bella is pretty funny, and Jacob's jokes were pretty legit." Yes. He said legit.
This group of haters has created the parody, "Vampires Suck", which I have seen and can tell you that it is probably one of the funniest things I have seen in awhile. The only problem is is that it accurately ridicules every ridiculous thing about the Twilight movies.
Unfortunately, I am one of those people that are giving money to these ridiculous movies. I have seen every Twilight movie at midnight, and I will probably see the midnight premiere of Breaking Dawn part one and two. But don't judge me on this. I'm still holding onto hope that they'll surprise me. I've been let down every time (although I give credit to Eclipse), and in the end, the movies still suck.
