TWD Pilot

One scene that struck me while watching The Walking Dead pilot is actually one of the first scenes of the show. Our first five minutes viewing the pilot is very different than the start of the original comic. The first five minutes consist of a clean-shaven, fully suited Rick running out of gas and then walking to a gas station where he encounters a little zombie girl in fuzzy slippers and braces and a robe. Rick then proceeds to shoot her square in the face. This opening is much different than the comics, in which Rick wakes up alone and emaciated in an empty (albeit zombie riddled) hospital. The pilots opening is so much more violent and brutal than the comics. It also has the viewers asking more questions than the readers of the comic would. At this point, the only alive human we see is Rick - which is like the comic - but instead of our first zombie that we see being an old patient or a doctor, the viewer is exposed to the image of a child. One thing that stood out to me, was how alive the zombie girl seems before we see her half-rotted face, picking up her toy bunny that she drops. This may be what leads Rick to call out to her and ask her if she is okay. The other thing that stood out to me, and also would leave the viewer asking questions, is Rick's complete lack of emotion he has when he shoots her between the eyes. This change makes me wonder if it is to show the immediate downward spiral that Rick undergoes - as this emotional response is far from the one we read in the comic - or if it is a ploy used to catch a new audience's attention, used for ratings.

Questions:
1). As a viewer, which opening did you prefer?
2). How do you think this opening differs from the original comics' in the way it portrays and sets the tone of Rick and the entire series?

P&P part 2

Let's talk about Darcy. First of all, I found that while reading the book (which I have several times), Darcy is written as a character to be disliked, at least initially. He is pompous and arrogant and self-absorbed. Although he is "handsome" and "wealthy", his attitude and disposition are meant to completely ruin him as a hero of the book. While I already have a rough time disliking Mr. Darcy, the BBC mini-series made it even harder not to like him. Firth's character is more sympathetic, which plays with his looks and wealth, and made me as the viewer side with him long before he is revealed to be a "good guy". There are also scenes in the BBC mini-series that include Darcy that are not in the novel. The first scene shows Darcy really making an effort to find Lydia and Wickham, in order to help Elizabeth save the family name, and hopefully get back into her good graces. This shows how much Darcy needs to redeem himself with Lizzie and how he has changed from the beginning of the series. The other scene that is interesting, but also not included in the novel, is the wedding scene at the end. It isn't included in the book, but makes a good ending to a mini-series.

Questions:
1). Is Darcy's portrayal shift intentional? How would making him more sympathetic and liked effect the audience?
2). Do you think the extra scenes that Darcy are in are realistic? Would he actually have put that much effort into personally finding Lydia and Wickham?

Characters in P&P part 1

My initial response to watching the first half of the mini-series would have to be how the characters would be portrayed. I had never seen any type of adaptation of the book, and have read it enough times to really have solid portraits of all of the characters. To me, the characters in BBC's adaptation were much older and often more over-the-top than I had interpreted them to be in the novel. Personally, I felt that, while the actors portrayed the characters well, their age difference than in the novel threw me off, and changed some context for me. First of all, I never imagined Jane and Elizabeth to look or act so much older than I was expecting. Second, although Mr. Collins is a "silly" man, I never expected him to be so awkwardly comedic in this adaptation. Although this physically does not change the story, personally, it changed the way I felt about certain characters, whether I thought their actions were justified or not.

Questions:
1). Did the change in age, (because come on, they do not look 19 and 21 years old) effect how you viewed decisions and actions?
2). Is there a reason why the BBC may have chosen to cast actors that would be older? i.e. How would the Lydia-Wickham affair be altered if Lydia really looked as young as she is in the novel?

The Humiliation of Elizabeth Bennet

Fraiman's essay unpacks the underlying themes of male gender domination in a novel that is seemingly feminine. She uses marriage as a way to help the reader understand that while Mr. Bennet may not seem like the traditional father, there is no denying that he is not thinking about what he can gain from the marriages of his daughters and what those connections bring him. Marriage is a time in a daughters life where she is handed to another man who then becomes the male that dictates her life. At the beginning of the novel, we see both Mr. Bennet and Elizabeth resist this tradition, when Collins proposes, and Elizabeth has to get the final word from her father, which is no. To Mr. Bennet, Mr. Collins is a silly man who can offer very little aside from security of their home. However, when Mr. Darcy asks consent for marriage, Mr. Bennet is quick to give consent, and impressed with the wealth of Mr. Darcy. Even before the proposal to his daughter, Mr. Bennet has been benefited by Mr. Darcy's wealth, when Darcy intervenes in the Lydia-Wickham elopement. This marriage between Darcy and Elizabeth ultimately benefit the males involved more than the females. Mr. Bennet will gain ties with an upperclass society, benefiting the Bennett name, and Darcy will benefit with a wife of his choosing that is much healthier than Miss De Bourgh. This also, in turn, negatively impacts the women of the novel. When Elizabeth agrees to marry Darcy, she is in fact marrying, literally, the reason for her sisters broken heart. That's sure to cause some tension at family gatherings.

Questions:
1). Did your impression of Mr. Bennet change throughout the novel? Or, if this essay hit you with the realization that Mr. Bennet is actually a very pragmatic father, did you change your opinion of him after?
2). After seeing such a strong female character in Elizabeth for the first two parts of the book, do you feel like her eventual nuptials to Mr. Darcy undermined what the beginning of the book set up?

The Lady in Wait; Nina Auerback and P&P

Auerbach's article "Waiting Together; Pride and Prejudice" is a closer look into the lifestyle that women were used to and how that effected gender roles in the early 19th century. She calls this "agonized restraint" (327), and how it is seen both in the home life of Lizzie and on the greater scale of England itself. On page 328, Auerbach breaks down the micro- and macrocosms of this waiting game. Within the family, all of the Bennett ladies are waiting for a man to be married off to in order to gain control of the family home and to provide for the daughter that is married. This waiting is pushed against when Mrs. Bennett devises ways to keep her daughter with Mr. Bingley, turning the waiting into the waited upon. The bigger picture of the female gender waiting is explained well, with the homes of the Bennett family and the Lucas family played against each other. The Bennett family home is named after the town it is built in, having no owner over its name, unlike the Lucas family home, which is called Lucas Lodge. It is known throughout the community that the Lucas' are complete owners of their own home, where with the Bennetts, and their home not being named after their own family, we see how the pressure for the daughters to marry could be coming from more sides than just the need to marry daughters off before they become old maids. The ownership of Longborn House is only emphasized when it is said that they face homelessness if Mr. Bennett dies before the daughters are married and in possession of the house, or it goes to Mr. Bennett's nephew. However, when looking at this waiting game the women have to play, there is a certain pressure on the whole Bennett family to marry a daughter off so the community will know that they are secure in their own home. This "waiting" was vital for women of the early 19th century, as it was all up to the man to court and propose to the woman.

Questions:
1). How would the fact that all of the Bennett daughters being out in socity be changed if there was no waiting on a male to inherit the home?
2). How does Mrs. Bennett subtly push this waiting game, and how does that in turn effect the Bennett family name in the community?

The Walking Dead Game and Inner Reflections

While playing the Telltale game, I started noticing that I was really thinking about how my decisions would affect and influence the game and the other characters. It was after the game that I sat and looked at my results and decisions and had to reflect on what kind of a person I would be during an apocalypse. The game really has an impact on the player, and there is a moment of realization when all your choices have some sort of consequence. The player is able to actively shape Lee's morals and actions and I think, after reading the articles and finishing the game, that it also, ultimately, shows a little peek into who the player is as a person; morally sound, ruthless, or willing to do anything for the good and survival of themselves and others. I'd like to say that throughout the game, I made the most moral decisions, but honestly, I know that if there was a choice between making the moral decision and making the most practical for survival, I would make the most practical decision, even if it had a moral consequence. Video games often make the player make choices, from meaningless, to completely interactive, and these choices that the player makes demonstrate the morals and ideals of both children and adult gamers. Before the Telltale game, I hadn't really played any games that made me question my decision-making and practicality vs. morality, but after, I have a deeper respect for the way video games have the ability to influence emotion and how it effects not only the game but the player.

Questions:
1). Do you believe that moral  decisions made in games are actually tied to the morality of the player as a person?
2). Are the decisions you made in the game the same ones you think you would have made in the same real-life situation?
3). Could emotional impact of video games be utilized to influence children and how they perceive morality and decision making?

Hutcheon's Theory of Adaptation

Hutcheon argues that adaptations are an important aspect to all works of art. He believes adaptations offer different perspectives of the piece of art. Many times, Hutcheon argues, a new adaptation of an old work with revitalize and bring new life to the work, and often bring the work of art into a new generation. It is clear that he does not agree with fidelity, because he states that art is not always meant to be imitated, and rather, an adaptation is open to expand on the work. Hutcheon also talks about how technology has opened up different and new forms of mediums for art and story telling, but also how it affected imagination and fidelity. A good point about fidelity he makes, is that when a work is adapted from a classic, people are much more critical of it, and afraid to lose the "meaning", however, when monetary gain is on the line, producers and film screen adapters are more likely to change the adaptation in order to make a more successful film and more money. I know, personally, that I get upset when seeing a movie of a favorite book and it has been drastically changed, or cut, not for adaptive change, but because it will help the backers of the movie become more successful.

Questions:
1). Are different-media adaptations more successful than same-media?
2). If so, does this affect classic works or more modern works? If not, why might same-media adaptations have a harder time gaining an audience than the original work?

Response # 2 to BBC's "Pride and Prejudice"

I definitely enjoyed this mini series more than I thought I would. It is very well done as an accurate representation of the book Pride and Prejudice and it really brings it to life on the screen. I think the casting and the setting is the best part in bringing everything together, I imagine that it doesn't look too different than how it is in the book. This feels like the best adaptation one could do for Pride and Prejudice on the screen because it encompasses so much of the original story while changing very little. It keeps all the important elements in and adjusts things so it flows better on the screen but overall it feels like a very faithful adaptation to the story. Colin First and Jennifer Ehle are perfect casting for the two leads and considering the 6 hour length it really doesn't seem like there would ever be a more accurate representation of the story on the screen than this miniseries. I do enjoy the 2005 film more but it is only two hours and there is much less time for the whole story.

I think the most engaging aspect of the story are the scenes between Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy. I feel like the story revolves around those two so that even when they aren't together a lot of the time you are still thinking about the both of them. Their scenes are very interesting to me because of how the culture they live in is so polite and refined, they have this kind of social barrier up between them but underneath that there is a lot of complicated emotions. For example, early on you aren't sure what Darcy really thinks of Elizabeth, and she seems a bit confused about him as well. But because the way they interact in their society of everyone being all proper, it is even more difficult to tell exactly what they are thinking. Even as their feelings change for each other as the stories go on, they still treat each other in basically the same courteous way. To me that is the most interesting part of the story to see the way they interact in a formal manner while underneath are complicated emotions.

I think my favorite episode is probably episode four because the part where Elizabeth meets Darcy at Pemberly is a romantic and nice scene. I like it because after all the friction between the two it finally feels like there is starting to be some warm feelings on both sides. As the audience we can tell the two have feelings for each other and it is interesting to see how this plays out during Elizabeth's surprise appearance at Pemberly. This scene is good because it feels like there is no other distractions or waiting for the plot to happen, this part is what the story is all about, the two main characters interacting. I think this is also the time in the story where we really are sold on the idea of those two being together and now we want it to happen in the end.

I think it's interesting how polite everyone is to each other in this story. For instance when Lady Catherine shows up at the Bennets at the end and is so rude, Elizabeth still talks with courtesy. After she turns down Mr. Darcy he wishes her good health and all. It's funny to me how it feels built in to their conversations to have a certain amount of courtesy, even when they are fighting or mad at each other, people are still civil in how they talk. It's funny and I like it.

Response # 1 to BBC's "Pride and Prejudice"

There is a lot that could be written about so I will start off by saying how the 2005 Pride and Prejudice has been one of my top 5 favorite movies since it came out. I am not sure why because everything else I like is action and adventure but I really like the directing, acting, and story in the 2005 film. So when we read the book and watched the miniseries I couldn't help but be influenced by the most recent film because I have seen it so many times.

One thing I noticed about reading Pride and Prejudice is how unique the writing style is. Jane Austen has a way of describing things very well, and she will spend long sentences that can be hard to read at first, but in the end she describes what the characters are feeling very well and you feel like you understand the situation better than in many novels I find.

On to the miniseries, I have enjoyed it more than I imagined I would. For some reason Pride and Prejudice is just a well done story that holds up and is entertaining in a way few light hearted stories are. One thing about the miniseries that I really enjoy is the lead actress Jennifer Ehle. I have seen her around in other films and always liked her but not realized who she is. The thing I like best about her performance is how it feels like the same performance that Keira Knightley gave, I think Keira was undoubtedly influenced by Jennifer's performance. Keira Knightley is one reason I love the 2005 film so much, and I was worried no other Elizabeth could come close. I was surprised at how well Jennifer portrayed Elizabeth and how similar her performance is to Keira's which I enjoyed so much.

The miniseries really brings the story to life, with the production and setting and cast. It also did a great job of matching dialogue and creating new dialogue that fits within the story. In contrasting the mini series with the 2005 film I have noticed a difference which leads me to enjoy the film the most. In the film there is obviously less time so they have to cut a lot of the story, and it feels like they cut a lot of the more dramatic elements, and kept the romance and comedy. This makes the film very pleasing to watch because there is not too much serious drama, whereas the mini series is also great but has the time to keep more of the serious drama. Some people may prefer that, but I enjoy the light hearted aspects of the story the most.

In reading the book and watching the mini series, one thing I notice is my perception of the Bennet family wealth seems off. Originally I always felt like the Bennets were rather poor because Mrs. Bennet is always complaining, and they are obsessed with finding rich men to marry. But then when you pay attention you notice that the Bennets have servants and a decent life. So really they are more like middle class, but because of all the focus on finding rich men to marry I kept thinking of the Bennets as a poor family.

Question, 1. How funny was it when Mr. Collins totally messed up on the dance floor and crashed into someone? Pretty funny. OK I need a real question.

Question, 2.When did English culture change to be more modern? It is so different the way men and women interact in Pride and Prejudice, and I was wondering at what time did England change and become less like the way is was in the story. And Why?