Madame Sun Lin Hoo(who was the thief) and all of them have to do with emotion. In the movie Otis Amber is the inventor but in the book it is Mr. Hoo. Otis is also the personal investigator but in the movie there is no personal investigator. Even though the plots are mostly the same it is interesting why so many details were left out of the
The 1951 original written work by Ray Bradbury (“The Pedestrian”) was, at some point in time, later adapted into a short film. Although both the film and short story shared many of the same elements, there were still several noticeably apparent differences; for one, the film had chosen to introduce an entirely new character into the plot. Serving as a contrasting figure for Mead - a “foil”, of some sorts - Robert “Bob” Stockwell had assisted in providing much more insight in the dystopian world (i.e. experiencing the “outside” world after being inside so long, as was seen in the film). Whereas in the original story, no such insight was provided - Mead was, instead, only just an ordinary individual (unintentionally) caught amidst the confines
Film besides digital photography is fully different medium. They used for similar approaches, but they completely separate from one another. Film as well as digital act different things beneficial and compliment each other. Neither disappearing, however the film will become lesser in areas where the digital exceeds, like news. Film has already wiped out from professional newspaper use and similarly, no digital capture method has nearly replace 8x10" large format film for massive exhibition prints that need to be phenomenal detailed.
They both used the two elements in the book/movie, but they had used them in a different matter. In the book the people that talked sort of like a robot due to have no emotions, eventually gained the emotions later on in the book. But in the movie the people of the community didn't really get any sort of emotion in their speaking until the very end when Jonas broke through the memory boundary. Also, the thing that was used the same was the color and how the people of the community didn't really see color. So as you can see the author and the writer of "The Giver" had both used the elements of color and Dialogue, but have used the Dialogue different.
1.) In the film Oh Brother Where Are Thou, I did not notice many invisible sounds, on the contrary I noticed a lot of visible sounds. Some invisible sounds could be when the three guys Everett, Delmar and Pete are driving in the car, and another visible sounds could be in the beginning of the film when the three men are hiding in the farm shed, for example when the town came to capture them we heard a lot of voices, but didn't necessarily see their faces. 2.) The sound effects in particular that contribute to a sense of reality and feeling of being there would be ambient sounds, I say this because ambient sounds are natural to the scenes environment.
Discontinuity, on the other hand, is very straightforward in this film because the established shots are not joined together in a fluid and smooth manner. A prime example of discontinuity in “Holding On” is when the film transitioned from a shot of the man sleeping to a shot of two white horses galloping in a field. This method is not technically a soviet montage because the shots were not rapid, but it does present the audience with two shots that seem to have nothing in common. The discontinuity that is being used in this film is ultimately conveying a hidden message.
This is due to technology. For example, on page 13 it states, “Got so many, starting a few years ago, we had the special machines built.” This shows that the technology has gotten out of control by allowing simple minding people to do extreme tasks. No one cares how little they know, because it’s as simple as that; that is all that they know. In “Harrison Bergeron”, the theme is exhibited in a different way.
It dedicates the last section to the opinions and answers to questions from the interviews that aren’t as related tot the topic as the other essays and articles within the book. The structure of the book was not complicated but the flow of it was. It wasn’t like most texts that slowly move into the following topic this book jumped right into it and often only provided two to four essays or articles within each section to describe events and
Lastly, the movie would be very difficult for a person with no background knowledge of this society Orwell built, to get a good grip on what was going on. When Winston reads Goldstein 's book it gives an inside look at the society, this part is very briefly covered in the movie, which gives a lack of understanding to the viewer. The director did seem to put effort into simplifying the material and moving the scenes around, in the beginning, to help the views better understand and get into the plot, but I don 't think it was very successful. The movie moved so quickly over all of the details and events that built to the end, that when Winston finally gets caught you feel no emotion because you don 't feel attached to his character. This is no knock to John Hurt as an actor, I think his scene with O’Brien in room 101 were great and showed emotion, but there wasn 't enough little details beforehand to really care what happened to him
I think one of the big differences was West Egg vs East Egg. In the movie, West Egg and East Egg were never at one point described as “old money” and “new money”
（无） The first video recording system has apply in the real life in the 1960. However, due to the limitation of technology, that video camera has big size and bad quality of recoding. It was not convenient to carry this video recording camera. At the end of 1960s, a popular science magazine article featured by the Connecticut police tried to install a video camera and a video recorder.
Orson Welles’ use of sound was as new to cinema as was the out of chronological order story line. But it was the chronology that was the most prevalent and most noticeable. In today’s cinema this type of story line has become less and less uncommon. That being said, it is not effective unless used properly. Both “Citizen Kane” (RKO, 1941) and “Pulp Fiction” (Miramax, 1994) were the gauge by which others are measured.
Now you know why the book and movie of Ender’s Game are so different and why the book is better. The movie adds unnecessary parts to it like ender when Ender had gotten tranquilized. It takes out many important parts in the movie like when Ender goes to salamander army. It even uses some important parts, but switches important things like dialogue, action, and even points of time.