Comparing The Opening Scene In Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Tomorrow Never Dies

his meal. The man recognized the tail and shot the monkey, so he could retrieve

I have chosen to evaluate a scene from Indiana Jones, Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indiana and Sallah uncover the Well of Soles where the lost ark is hidden. We open the scene at 57:03 with Indiana leading a team of diggers up a hill to the spot where they will dig for the ark. As the scene opens we hear the diegetic sounds of the diggers and commotion taking place in the background. We also hear non-diegetic music that will be referred to as the “ark theme” playing as Indiana climbs the hill and has his men start to dig for the ark. The slow and sort of creepy tone that makes up the ark theme reminds us of the continuing quest for the ark and

Buck lives in Judges Millers estate at the beginning of both the book and the movie. He is then kidnapped by Manuel, the gardener. He is sold to dog salesmen heading to Alaska. He is disciplined by the Law of Club and Fang. The man in the red sweater takes Buck out of the cage and repeatedly beats him. Buck continues to try to attack until he is to week to fight. He then learns the law of Club and Fang.

The original 1933 King Kong was created as a movie: to convey a story and entertain and audience. Peter Jackson’s 2005 remake took the foundation for King Kong and expanded upon it in almost every way in order to “make again” the amazement of the original for a modern audience. Audiences received the original King Kong very well. The stop motion sequences of Kong were amazing for their time and the movie grossed $90,000 in its opening weekend. In order to bank upon its success again sequels were made and then in 1976 a remake was made to improve upon the original. Paramount updated the movie to color, changed the story, and cast Jeff Bridges, a well-known actor of the time, as the lead. Although the movie received mixed reviews, it did

Both “Zero Hour” by Ray Bradbury and War of The Worlds by H.G Wells present to us a society under attack by Martians. However, their stories are both very diverse pieces and this is presented in a medley of ways. The authors of War of The Worlds and “Zero Hour” portray alien invasions in different ways through the character’s arrival and different methods of arrival.

balance, and the cave paintings start the film's narrative by suggesting this may happen if something

The differences between book and movie, we think that the story of four children who go to live with an older man (a professor) in order to get away from the air raids that are occurring at home due to the war. The film begins with Lucy telling the others about Narnia and the wardrobe, and the events in Narnia with Mr. Tumnus are shown as a flashback. In the book, these events are shown before she tells everyone about them. The characters of Mrs. Macready, Father Christmas and the Giant Rumblebuffin are cut. (Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy appear to enter the wardrobe on their own, and Aslan gives them their gifts when they reach the Stone Table. However, Father Christmas is mentioned, and the jingle bells of his sled are heard.) Maugrim's name is changed to Fenris Ulf, like in the old American Version of the chronicles. While they are staying with the professor, they find a wardrobe in an empty room that leads them to another world called Narnia.

The original King Kong (1933) was fairly different from the new 2005 version. In the new version, Kong was much more humanized. For example, in the end when Kong falls off of the building and dies, it is heartbreaking. But in the original, there is a sense of relief when Kong finally dies, after terrorizing New York City and especially Ann. Kong and Ann share a more profound bond in the newer film. That is shown when Kong is finished fighting the three Tyrannosaurus Rex, she willfully goes with him, after he saves her. Also, towards the end you see Kong and Ann having fun playing on the ice back in New York. Ann wasn't afraid of Kong in the remake.

It is an unimaginable thought that something so similar can be missing so much. They can be both so unique and incomparable. In the book To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee the main character, Scout and her brother Jem fight prejudice through a young person perspective. The main characters go on a journey against Bob Ewell throughout the sleepy town of Maycomb, at the 1930’s. Bob Ewell has falsely accused Tom Robinson of a crime. On the process the characters grow a lot and find things that spark their curiosity. This makes an interesting plot with many turns. The movie, To Kill a Mockingbird, has many differences from its book, many plots and characters are missing which greatly impacts the movie directed by Robert Mulligan.

Raiders of the Lost Ark (Steven Spielberg, USA 1981) Harrison Ford stars in the film Raiders of the Lost Ark as a character called Indiana Jones. The opening sequence has left Indiana’s character mysterious to the audience but throughout this sequence we understand his character as bold, cool, calm and a collected leader, but as the sequence develops and the scene changes we see another side to Indiana, an intellectual man who dresses smartly and doesn’t seem cool anymore. From the opening sequence we know that this film is an action/adventure because it is packed with excitement, violence and close encounters with death. The mise en scene or what the audience see and hear plays

The difference between the 1934 and 1959 version of the Imitation of Life is how they gave more emphasis on the African American side of the story. At first it started with Lora’s story as a struggling actress trying to make it big, but towards the second half of the movie it became apparent that the focus was on the Annie and Sarah Jane story. This movie is known as melodramatic because it contains a lot of emotional scenes and with this it causes the audience to be fully engaged in the movie.

The books are usually better than the movies. This is why I am usually reluctant to watch any movies based off of books. Some movies don’t meet the standards set by the book, and fall extremely below the expectations of movie watchers and book lovers alike. Some movies meets the standards of the book, but there is some disappointment here and there. The film adaptation of Bridge to Terabithia is one of these movies. It certainly meet the standards of the book but there was a little disappointment among moviegoers.

Macbeth the movie and Lion King are very different, but very similar. One is a cartoon animation movie by Disney and the other is a play written by William Shakespeare that was later produced into a movie by Ian McKellan. Both movies have a tradegy, but also have a small heros journey and I will show the comparsion between them both.

Many elements of the film Life is Beautiful can compare to the Bible. For example, Guido, the main character, acts as a Christ figure in that he saves his son, Joshua from the evils of the Holocaust. Another example that compares with the Bible is the tank that is promised to Joshua. Finally, Guido’s death eventually saves Joshua from his own death. Such examples in the movie are comparable to examples in the Bible.

Literature can, at times, have a fascinating connection with film. Whether it is a film or a piece of literature, both are written by someone that wants to leave an impact on an audience. However, movies and books have different roles. They each have different strong points wherein books give better characterization, stronger revelations, and inner conflict, but movies create a better mood with music and visuals, showing much more emotion. It's a totally different kind of experience, of course, and there are a number of differences between the book and the movie. The novel of 2001: A Space Odyssey by Arthur C. Clarke, for example, attempts to explain things much more explicitly than the film does, which is inevitable in a verbal medium. The movie version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, directed by Stanley Kubrick, on the other hand, is essentially a visual, nonverbal experience. It avoids intellectual verbalization and reaches the viewer's subconscious in a way that is essentially poetic and philosophic. The film thus becomes a subjective experience, which hits the viewer at an inner level of consciousness, just as music does, or painting. Utilizing its verbal medium, Clarke is able to explain his narrative, whereas Kubrick creates a visual and audial experience, through means of ambiguity, in which the viewer sees everything, is told nothing, and in which one cannot detect the presence of the film as one at all.