To explain, the battle school executes in trying to save the world by pushing Ender to be the best he is able to be. By doing this, the battle school is able to ensure that their “tool” is in the best condition it can be in. Ender is given an army and forced to battle daily for weeks on end and eventually is given multiple battles a day, just so that he can be pushed to find his boundaries. In conclusion, while Iago is the manipulator in Othello, he never manipulates for anyone other than himself because he is only interested in what he is able to do for himself. Contrary to this, the battle school is the manipulator in Ender’s Game, and it only manipulates for a good reason.
The goal for Caleb is to help Hobart obtain fame, as he “[did not] [produce] anything noteworthy in years” (Wilson 186). There are many ways to obtain fame; however, the chosen method is to shoot Hobart. Such a radical idea takes many people by surprise, which results in a greater public exposure. Caleb’s idea of shooting Hobart is supported by the statement “art, if you [love] it, [is] worth any amount of unhappiness and pain” (Wilson 190). This statement can be interpreted as one can go to any length to make art, which is exactly what Caleb does.
I agree that the movie was better. However, I don 't agree that the novel wasn 't good. The novel would have no strikes against it if it weren 't for that thing with Hooper and Ellen Brody, in my honest opinion. I will say that I think the movie Patriot Games is much better than the novel because the movie has a much better ending and the line that comes from Jack Ryan, "I will ****ing destroy you. I will make it my mission in
Instead of being the documentary like film that it would have been, (had the writers and producers stuck to the original story) they decided to turn it into an action movie. I think that this is partly because action movies tend to sell a lot better, as well as capture the attention of most people. In the film, we got to see more of people interacting with each other during the global chaos, as opposed to having a deeper focus on the zombies themselves. I think that film wouldn’t have been as good as it is, had they tried to focus more on the same things the book focused on (the zombies, for example). Had they made it like the novel, it might have become
Just liked in the movie, The Avengers, superheroes and villains come to fight to save the humanity or hurts it. Heros could bring justice for the people and civilized the whole nation; unlike the villains, they brought seekers to people and lead them to tragedy. Heros, who tried to find villain 's plans in order to get one step ahead of the opponent(s). While villains acted like poker face or joker. Just liked no other battle like the first Battle of Bull Run that related to the movie The Avengers.
Finally, this movie showed a realistic approach to how problems such as this disease is dealt with, between authorities and the effects of those. In this movie the idea of bombing the whole city was well liked among authorities and planned to be used twice. Although the movie had many realistic points, it also had some unrealistic parts. One prime example of an unrealistic moment in this movie was the short time it took to produce the antiserum and delivery to all the people. In real life circumstances, the antiserum wouldn’t have been made so quickly and would have slowed their plan down.
The film also had great themes that set the framework for future movies such as Blade Runner, according to Kenneth Turan. Finally, I thought the acting was amazing, especially by Brigitte Helm. I do not know how any other actress could have portrayed Maria and the machine Maria any better. I liked the dramatic styles of the actors because it added to the drama of the plot. This movie did not have any glaring flaw and the attention to detail from the director, Fritz Lang, allowed the movie to be so great, such as how the workers who had been working walked slower than the fresh workers in the beginning of the film, as pointed out by Mordaunt Hall.
He should be somewhat more menacing and angry, like in the book, rather than acting very creepy. He is immensely powerful in the books, and uses that to his advantage, but flaunts it very uncharacteristically in the movie in order to throw off the main character. One may describe him as a puppeteer of sorts. The actors cast in the movie don’t look like the book describes the characters. The only actor that really did well was the man who played Brom.
While movies can get away with cheap jump scares in the place of tension, books typically cannot. So, they rely on a slow build of fear, which can be much more effective than a quick jump scare, if done right. When events take place, everything does not happen at once; the storyteller lets the suspense and tension rise, so readers grow anxious and afraid as they anticipate the next event. It is a pretty effective way of doing horror. Suspension of Disbelief is also a big factor.
In the story Light logically thinks and decides to kill all the villains in order to make the world more pleasant. Like Light I think logically, my understanding is, if something is bad, getting rid of it would mean it’s good. Of course that doesn 't mean it applies to everything, which is where Light’s emotional factor also applies to me. In the story one of lights obstacle is his father who works for the police. This is where light gets his humanity, without a second doubt Light wouldn’t kill his father ( neither would I), This proves that light has emotions and is not willing to kill someone close to him even though logically it would make sense to get rid of obstacles to achieve a goal.