This semester, I have to say, was a very interesting one. I've had my ups and downs and I wasn't able
to give my full 100%. I really enjoyed the first progression essay the most because I was able to freely
express myself and my passion for music. The topic on the issue was one I've had on my mind for awhile
now and it was really cool to be able to talk about it in a essay for my English class. My least favorite essay i
would have to say was progression 2. I don't really like over analyzing things in general, like movies and
things of that nature. I thought progression 3 was cool because it was off a graphic novel and the movie had
my wife Natalie Portman in it. I enjoyed the reading and had fun comparing the novel and the movie.
I really enjoyed Jeff as my English teacher this semester, he was unlike any teacher I had before and I
commend him on all his efforts. I learned a lot this semester about myself and how I should prioritize my
timing, even when personal issues arise into the situation. I also liked our SI teacher, he was very informative
on things I never thought would be interesting. During progression 2 we talked about space and he showed
us videos on how people took very small places and organized it to where everything they needed was there.
As much as I enjoyed this semester, I truly am looking forward to next semester because i want to
take everything I learned and apply it to my new work. As much as I'll miss everyone, I will move forward
and show others my progression from this past semester to the next. I wish everyone else the best and I
know the best of luck will be with me. Thanks for everything and farewell.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Portfolio Essay 2
People for almost the past 60 years have continually embraced and made it a tradition to go Disneyland. I
mean, who wouldn't? Disneyland is a place of peace and fun loving activities, but have you questioned
why Disneyland was built the way it was set up? Not only does Disneyland want their customers to be in a
world of happiness, but they want their customers to pay as much money as they can in this place of
happiness too. Nothing in Disneyland was built on accident. From every building to every painted wall,
Disney purposely places the artifacts in a specific area because they want to make more money.
In the entrance of Disneyland, they purposely have many of their shopping centers in the front center of
the park. Coming through the entrance, it's like a long road meant for people to walk around in and get into
the mode of shopping. Notice that this walk way is the first and last thing you see while you are in the park.
The reason Disneyland does this is so the customers are highly tempted to spend their money to buy a
souvenir to remember the awesome day they had there. In Simon Cowell's book Theme Parks, he states,
"the reasoning behind all architecture done in theme parks are never on accident" (Cowell 16). What Cowell
meant by this is that every building that's up in a theme park is purposely placed there so customers can
spend more of there money. Theme parks don't just make there money off the tickets, they need customers
to pay for things in the park as well.
Color has an effect on how people feel and what they want to do. For example, notice the color of
McDonald's stores are mostly made up of red. Online, Raetta Parker stated, "Red is a very emotionally
intense color. It enhances human metabolism, increases respiration rate, and raises blood pressure. This
color is also commonly associated with energy, so you can use it when promoting energy drinks, games,
cars, items related to sports and high physical activity." (Parker resources.oncourse.iu.edu). When inside
McDonalds, the color red gives off the mood of you being hungry, making you want to spend your money
to buy food. The same concept happens in Disneyland as well. They paint buildings certain colors to make
people in the mood to spend more of there money.
Architecture in theme parks are placed in certain locations so it would be more convenient to buy things.
Notice that bathrooms are always located near food stores. The reasoning behind this is so that those who
are tired of walking around for the bathroom will give in and by a drink. While getting a drink, you won't
want to wait in the long line again so you end up buying food too. Having the bathrooms located at certain
areas in the park profit to Disneyland by manipulating customers to buy food and a beverage.
Architecture done in theme parks always have a purpose of being there. Nothing is ever built on accident
and the building's purpose there is to make the park more money. Even colors give off a tone to make
others feel a certain way and spend more money. Having shops near the exit of the park make customers
more likely to buy a souvenir and or food product. Without these architectual qualities, Disneyland would
not be able to make as much money as it does now and may not even be making profit.
Work Cited
resources.oncourse.iu.edu
Simon Cowell; Theme Parks: New York Press; pg. 16
mean, who wouldn't? Disneyland is a place of peace and fun loving activities, but have you questioned
why Disneyland was built the way it was set up? Not only does Disneyland want their customers to be in a
world of happiness, but they want their customers to pay as much money as they can in this place of
happiness too. Nothing in Disneyland was built on accident. From every building to every painted wall,
Disney purposely places the artifacts in a specific area because they want to make more money.
In the entrance of Disneyland, they purposely have many of their shopping centers in the front center of
the park. Coming through the entrance, it's like a long road meant for people to walk around in and get into
the mode of shopping. Notice that this walk way is the first and last thing you see while you are in the park.
The reason Disneyland does this is so the customers are highly tempted to spend their money to buy a
souvenir to remember the awesome day they had there. In Simon Cowell's book Theme Parks, he states,
"the reasoning behind all architecture done in theme parks are never on accident" (Cowell 16). What Cowell
meant by this is that every building that's up in a theme park is purposely placed there so customers can
spend more of there money. Theme parks don't just make there money off the tickets, they need customers
to pay for things in the park as well.
Color has an effect on how people feel and what they want to do. For example, notice the color of
McDonald's stores are mostly made up of red. Online, Raetta Parker stated, "Red is a very emotionally
intense color. It enhances human metabolism, increases respiration rate, and raises blood pressure. This
color is also commonly associated with energy, so you can use it when promoting energy drinks, games,
cars, items related to sports and high physical activity." (Parker resources.oncourse.iu.edu). When inside
McDonalds, the color red gives off the mood of you being hungry, making you want to spend your money
to buy food. The same concept happens in Disneyland as well. They paint buildings certain colors to make
people in the mood to spend more of there money.
Architecture in theme parks are placed in certain locations so it would be more convenient to buy things.
Notice that bathrooms are always located near food stores. The reasoning behind this is so that those who
are tired of walking around for the bathroom will give in and by a drink. While getting a drink, you won't
want to wait in the long line again so you end up buying food too. Having the bathrooms located at certain
areas in the park profit to Disneyland by manipulating customers to buy food and a beverage.
Architecture done in theme parks always have a purpose of being there. Nothing is ever built on accident
and the building's purpose there is to make the park more money. Even colors give off a tone to make
others feel a certain way and spend more money. Having shops near the exit of the park make customers
more likely to buy a souvenir and or food product. Without these architectual qualities, Disneyland would
not be able to make as much money as it does now and may not even be making profit.
Work Cited
resources.oncourse.iu.edu
Simon Cowell; Theme Parks: New York Press; pg. 16
Portfolio Essay 3
In Alan Moore’s book V For Vendetta, V is a man on a quest to fix the fascist
government and get revenge on the people who created what he was, a monster. The book
and the movie directed by James McTeigue share many common attributes, but there are
many book and movie differences as well. Though the book and the movie share the same
story plot, both stories told are altered from each other through Evey‘s character, causing
a different ending for both the book and the movie. Evey's character change ended up changing the
ending of the movie from the book because both Evey's presented themselves differently. The
alteration happens along gradually through the movie from the book, eventually changing the end story
completely.
Starting from the beginning of the story, both Eveys carry them selves as different
characters. In the movie, Eveys character (Natalie Portman) leaves her apartment after
curfew to meet up with a co worker, but in the book Eveys character tries to sell herself
for money. In Moore’s V For Vendetta, he writes, “…Uh… would… would you
like to… uh… sleep with me or anything? … I mean… uh… for money?” (Moore 10).
The reason for the change in script was so Natalie Portman’s character would not be a
prostitute, giving a better front for Portman’s character and the actress herself. Another
part in the novel that differed from Evey’s character in the movie was the priest scene. In
the novel, Evey’s character stalled the priest in hopes that V would eventually come in
and do his thing, but in the movie Evey’s character actually ratted out V to the priest.
A blogger posted on his blog, “…the movie version of Evey was far less believable as a
real character than the book version.” (airplanepeanuts). In the novel, Evey’s character
was on the side of V while in the movie Evey still wasn’t too sure if what V was doing
was right. Same character conflicting one another from both book and movie.
Through out the novel, Evey’s character was much more promiscuous and
revealing than she was in the movie. Evey in the novel had a physical relationship with
Gordon, but in the movie Gordon was hiding the fact the he was homo sexual. In the
movie, Gordon tells Evey, “I didn't have to be Muslim to find the images beautiful, or its
poetry moving…I told you, you'll be the least of my worries.” (imdb.com). Gordon was
also referring to the pictures of other men on his wall that he had been with before, for it
was illegal to be gay and the punishment would be either prison or death. The reasoning
behind the change of story for the relationship between Gordon and Evey was because the
director of the movie wanted to only have a connection between V and Evey. Another
note on Evey being much more revealing in the book was the part where she walks out in
the rain completely naked with her arms spread out. In V For Vendetta by Alan Moore, V
says, “Five years ago, I too came through a night like the naked under a roaring sky.”
(Moore 172). In the movie she had clothing so it would keep Portman from revealing
herself.
The novel and the movie have very different endings based on what actions Evey
proceeds to take. At the end of novel, V ends up dying and Evey rightfully replaces him
to be the face of hope for the people in London and continue V‘s work. In the movie, V
does die but his death caused the end of the fascist government and gives the people the
power to start something new for themselves, not needing for Evey to take V’s place. In
the novel, Evey states, “I kneel, my hands are trembling, I can hardly find the fastenings,
but finally I lift away that maddening smile, and… … and at last I know. I know who V
must be.” (Moore 250). This is where Evey in the novel stands over V's dead body and
states she will become the new V. So Evey in the movie moves on with her life and Evey
in the novel becomes the face of hope.
Through out both the novel and the movie, Evey's change in course of action determines
how the story ends. Evey's character in the movie was more conservative and less revealing so
the actress could be more comfortable and make the character herself seem more in control with
herself. Evey did not have anything physical with anyone in the movie, except for the mask kiss
with V but that's because they wanted the romance and connection between the two. As the story
continued the more apart the Evey's became from each other, having an alternate ending for the
movie V For Vendetta.
Work Cited
Alan Moore; V For Vendetta: New York Press pgs. 10, 172, 250
imdb.com
airplanepeanuts.com
government and get revenge on the people who created what he was, a monster. The book
and the movie directed by James McTeigue share many common attributes, but there are
many book and movie differences as well. Though the book and the movie share the same
story plot, both stories told are altered from each other through Evey‘s character, causing
a different ending for both the book and the movie. Evey's character change ended up changing the
ending of the movie from the book because both Evey's presented themselves differently. The
alteration happens along gradually through the movie from the book, eventually changing the end story
completely.
Starting from the beginning of the story, both Eveys carry them selves as different
characters. In the movie, Eveys character (Natalie Portman) leaves her apartment after
curfew to meet up with a co worker, but in the book Eveys character tries to sell herself
for money. In Moore’s V For Vendetta, he writes, “…Uh… would… would you
like to… uh… sleep with me or anything? … I mean… uh… for money?” (Moore 10).
The reason for the change in script was so Natalie Portman’s character would not be a
prostitute, giving a better front for Portman’s character and the actress herself. Another
part in the novel that differed from Evey’s character in the movie was the priest scene. In
the novel, Evey’s character stalled the priest in hopes that V would eventually come in
and do his thing, but in the movie Evey’s character actually ratted out V to the priest.
A blogger posted on his blog, “…the movie version of Evey was far less believable as a
real character than the book version.” (airplanepeanuts). In the novel, Evey’s character
was on the side of V while in the movie Evey still wasn’t too sure if what V was doing
was right. Same character conflicting one another from both book and movie.
Through out the novel, Evey’s character was much more promiscuous and
revealing than she was in the movie. Evey in the novel had a physical relationship with
Gordon, but in the movie Gordon was hiding the fact the he was homo sexual. In the
movie, Gordon tells Evey, “I didn't have to be Muslim to find the images beautiful, or its
poetry moving…I told you, you'll be the least of my worries.” (imdb.com). Gordon was
also referring to the pictures of other men on his wall that he had been with before, for it
was illegal to be gay and the punishment would be either prison or death. The reasoning
behind the change of story for the relationship between Gordon and Evey was because the
director of the movie wanted to only have a connection between V and Evey. Another
note on Evey being much more revealing in the book was the part where she walks out in
the rain completely naked with her arms spread out. In V For Vendetta by Alan Moore, V
says, “Five years ago, I too came through a night like the naked under a roaring sky.”
(Moore 172). In the movie she had clothing so it would keep Portman from revealing
herself.
The novel and the movie have very different endings based on what actions Evey
proceeds to take. At the end of novel, V ends up dying and Evey rightfully replaces him
to be the face of hope for the people in London and continue V‘s work. In the movie, V
does die but his death caused the end of the fascist government and gives the people the
power to start something new for themselves, not needing for Evey to take V’s place. In
the novel, Evey states, “I kneel, my hands are trembling, I can hardly find the fastenings,
but finally I lift away that maddening smile, and… … and at last I know. I know who V
must be.” (Moore 250). This is where Evey in the novel stands over V's dead body and
states she will become the new V. So Evey in the movie moves on with her life and Evey
in the novel becomes the face of hope.
Through out both the novel and the movie, Evey's change in course of action determines
how the story ends. Evey's character in the movie was more conservative and less revealing so
the actress could be more comfortable and make the character herself seem more in control with
herself. Evey did not have anything physical with anyone in the movie, except for the mask kiss
with V but that's because they wanted the romance and connection between the two. As the story
continued the more apart the Evey's became from each other, having an alternate ending for the
movie V For Vendetta.
Work Cited
Alan Moore; V For Vendetta: New York Press pgs. 10, 172, 250
imdb.com
airplanepeanuts.com
Portfolio Essay 1
Nicholas Jaramillo
English 113 B
Professor Klepper
Music Sampling
Over the years, music artists have taken the work of former artists and used it as
their own. It varies on what usage of the work the new artists took, but if used without
permission it’s considered illegal under the copyright infringement law. The only way to
make this process legal is not only have permission but pay the original artist as well.
Although this sounds like a fair and easy process, only famous artists can realistically
afford to pay for sampling. There should be a new music sampling system where both
famous artists and up-and-coming artists can get sampling because it would make it fair
game for both sides which would make way for more artists to take older music and
evolve it into their own, and not just let the rich artists get richer.
Walt Disney’s famous short film Steamboat Willie was actually copied from a film
that came out earlier that year called Steamboat Bill, Jr. Disney was allowed to do this
because their was no copyright law back then, but after his work was made, the copyright
law came in effect. In Lawrence Lessigs’ book Free Culture, he states “Early cartoons are
filled with knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of ancient
stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the differences.” (Lessig 23). Just like
music artists today, they want to build up upon what former artists created and be noticed
for their input of brilliance and difference. Disney took an old idea and developed his
own, coming out with a much better product than the original. The goal of the new artist
is to come up with something better, but they are stopped by the copyright law, excluding
them from what only famous artists can afford.
I constantly make music, it has been a passion of mine for some time. If I was able
to take sampling from other songs and make it into my own, making music would be
much easier, it would even benefit the former artists as well. In Lessigs’ book Free
Culture, Lessig explains “By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their
creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.”(Lessig 58). Lessig says this
because by making the music free, the music becomes a type of advertisement for people
to come to enjoy. Once the people are hooked by the music, they become fans that want
to purchase merchandise or concert tickets to that artist. It’s the same for sampling as
well. By taking the original and making it your own, the new generation of society will
hear my music, and if I give credit to the original artist the new generation will see this.
Then people would start looking up the original song, making the original artist more
money. Basically what the new artist is doing is not just making money himself, but free
advertising for the former artist as well.
There’s a saying that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, this statement in
our current sampling program is true. In order to use sampling legally, artists pay large
sums of money so they can use it to evolve the sound. Now if an regular guy off the street
tried sampling without paying, he would be sued large amounts of money he doesn’t
have. So it is basically impossible for normal guy to ever use sampling, for he can’t afford
to use sampling and if he does illegally, he would be sued for millions of dollars. The
famous artists however, can easily pay for the sampling coverage. Then they get their
money back plus lots more of it once their song or album is released. The current system
today is not fair and both groups need a fair hand involved with the sampling mix.
The Hip-Hop Industry is well known for sampling music. Not until the 80’s did
sampling come up in full launch scale. In Tonya M. Evans article, “Sampling,
Looping, and Mashing…. Oh My!: How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the
Surface of Copyright Law” she says, “ … copyright law must be remixed to achieve
optimal balance between a copyright holder’s exclusive rights and the legal space a
second generation innovator needs to build upon existing works in order to create new
ones in cumulative creative genres like music.” (Evans). She is agreeing with the
statement to have an equal terms between the original artists and the new artists so that
the new artists can create new music with old material. Making a system like this would
benefit both persons for they are both making profit by A: both promoting each other with
their styles of music. B: having people who wouldn’t know about your music become
aware of your sound, and C: once fans hear your music, they will want to see the artists in
concert or buy merchandise off them.
Local artists can never logically pay for a sampling fee like rich artist can. In
Michael McCreadys article “Copyright Law, Treaties and Advice” he says “ First, you
can pay a flat fee for the usage. A buy-out fee can range from $250 to $10,000 on a major
label. If the court determines willful infringement, damages can run as high as $100,000”
(McCready). Big time artists such as Jay Z can easily pay off these fees, but for local
artists, it may be too much to handle. To make things fair, the system for equal rights in
sampling would make it cheaper for both sides.
Music industry today is stuck in the Lou. There must be a system where both ends
of the Hip Hop game can have fair chance at sampling, otherwise the poor fall and the
rich keep getting higher to the top. Both artists benefit from the system, lowering the
costs for each of them, and the original artist gets free advertisement from the two artists.
Its is three way win streak, and if it was fair in the past (Walt Disney copying Steamboat
Bill, Jr. for the make of Steamboat Willie) then it should be fair now in the present. Once
the system is created, lots of new music will be developed making a great change in
music. Today’s fix up, can be tomorrow’s new gift of change.
Work Cited
Lessig, Lawrence: Free Culture; The Penguin Press 2004; pg. (23-58)
Tonya M. Evans. “Sampling, Looping, and Mashing…. Oh My!: How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the Surface of Copyright Law” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 21 (2011): 843
Michael McCready Attorney at Law 1900 Chicago Road Chicago, IL 60411
McCready@music-law.co
English 113 B
Professor Klepper
Music Sampling
Over the years, music artists have taken the work of former artists and used it as
their own. It varies on what usage of the work the new artists took, but if used without
permission it’s considered illegal under the copyright infringement law. The only way to
make this process legal is not only have permission but pay the original artist as well.
Although this sounds like a fair and easy process, only famous artists can realistically
afford to pay for sampling. There should be a new music sampling system where both
famous artists and up-and-coming artists can get sampling because it would make it fair
game for both sides which would make way for more artists to take older music and
evolve it into their own, and not just let the rich artists get richer.
Walt Disney’s famous short film Steamboat Willie was actually copied from a film
that came out earlier that year called Steamboat Bill, Jr. Disney was allowed to do this
because their was no copyright law back then, but after his work was made, the copyright
law came in effect. In Lawrence Lessigs’ book Free Culture, he states “Early cartoons are
filled with knockoffs—slight variations on winning themes; retellings of ancient
stories. The key to success was the brilliance of the differences.” (Lessig 23). Just like
music artists today, they want to build up upon what former artists created and be noticed
for their input of brilliance and difference. Disney took an old idea and developed his
own, coming out with a much better product than the original. The goal of the new artist
is to come up with something better, but they are stopped by the copyright law, excluding
them from what only famous artists can afford.
I constantly make music, it has been a passion of mine for some time. If I was able
to take sampling from other songs and make it into my own, making music would be
much easier, it would even benefit the former artists as well. In Lessigs’ book Free
Culture, Lessig explains “By limiting the rights musicians have, by partially pirating their
creative work, the record producers, and the public, benefit.”(Lessig 58). Lessig says this
because by making the music free, the music becomes a type of advertisement for people
to come to enjoy. Once the people are hooked by the music, they become fans that want
to purchase merchandise or concert tickets to that artist. It’s the same for sampling as
well. By taking the original and making it your own, the new generation of society will
hear my music, and if I give credit to the original artist the new generation will see this.
Then people would start looking up the original song, making the original artist more
money. Basically what the new artist is doing is not just making money himself, but free
advertising for the former artist as well.
There’s a saying that the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, this statement in
our current sampling program is true. In order to use sampling legally, artists pay large
sums of money so they can use it to evolve the sound. Now if an regular guy off the street
tried sampling without paying, he would be sued large amounts of money he doesn’t
have. So it is basically impossible for normal guy to ever use sampling, for he can’t afford
to use sampling and if he does illegally, he would be sued for millions of dollars. The
famous artists however, can easily pay for the sampling coverage. Then they get their
money back plus lots more of it once their song or album is released. The current system
today is not fair and both groups need a fair hand involved with the sampling mix.
The Hip-Hop Industry is well known for sampling music. Not until the 80’s did
sampling come up in full launch scale. In Tonya M. Evans article, “Sampling,
Looping, and Mashing…. Oh My!: How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the
Surface of Copyright Law” she says, “ … copyright law must be remixed to achieve
optimal balance between a copyright holder’s exclusive rights and the legal space a
second generation innovator needs to build upon existing works in order to create new
ones in cumulative creative genres like music.” (Evans). She is agreeing with the
statement to have an equal terms between the original artists and the new artists so that
the new artists can create new music with old material. Making a system like this would
benefit both persons for they are both making profit by A: both promoting each other with
their styles of music. B: having people who wouldn’t know about your music become
aware of your sound, and C: once fans hear your music, they will want to see the artists in
concert or buy merchandise off them.
Local artists can never logically pay for a sampling fee like rich artist can. In
Michael McCreadys article “Copyright Law, Treaties and Advice” he says “ First, you
can pay a flat fee for the usage. A buy-out fee can range from $250 to $10,000 on a major
label. If the court determines willful infringement, damages can run as high as $100,000”
(McCready). Big time artists such as Jay Z can easily pay off these fees, but for local
artists, it may be too much to handle. To make things fair, the system for equal rights in
sampling would make it cheaper for both sides.
Music industry today is stuck in the Lou. There must be a system where both ends
of the Hip Hop game can have fair chance at sampling, otherwise the poor fall and the
rich keep getting higher to the top. Both artists benefit from the system, lowering the
costs for each of them, and the original artist gets free advertisement from the two artists.
Its is three way win streak, and if it was fair in the past (Walt Disney copying Steamboat
Bill, Jr. for the make of Steamboat Willie) then it should be fair now in the present. Once
the system is created, lots of new music will be developed making a great change in
music. Today’s fix up, can be tomorrow’s new gift of change.
Work Cited
Lessig, Lawrence: Free Culture; The Penguin Press 2004; pg. (23-58)
Tonya M. Evans. “Sampling, Looping, and Mashing…. Oh My!: How Hip Hop Music is Scratching More Than the Surface of Copyright Law” Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal 21 (2011): 843
Michael McCready Attorney at Law 1900 Chicago Road Chicago, IL 60411
McCready@music-law.co
Tuesday, December 10, 2013
V for Vendetta Copy
In Alan Moore’s book V For Vendetta, V is a man on a quest to fix the fascist
government and get revenge on the people who created what he was, a monster. The book
and the movie directed by James McTeigue share many common attributes, but there are
many book and movie differences as well. Though the book and the movie share the same
story plot, both stories told are altered from each other through Evey‘s character, causing
a different ending for both the book and the movie. Evey's character change ended up changing the
ending of the movie from the book because both Evey's presented themselves differently. The
alteration happens along gradually through the movie from the book, eventually changing the end story
completely.
Starting from the beginning of the story, both Eveys carry them selves as different
characters. In the movie, Eveys character (Natalie Portman) leaves her apartment after
curfew to meet up with a co worker, but in the book Eveys character tries to sell herself
for money. In Moore’s V For Vendetta, he writes, “…Uh… would… would you
like to… uh… sleep with me or anything? … I mean… uh… for money?” (Moore 10).
The reason for the change in script was so Natalie Portman’s character would not be a
prostitute, giving a better front for Portman’s character and the actress herself. Another
part in the novel that differed from Evey’s character in the movie was the priest scene. In
the novel, Evey’s character stalled the priest in hopes that V would eventually come in
and do his thing, but in the movie Evey’s character actually ratted out V to the priest.
A blogger posted on his blog, “…the movie version of Evey was far less believable as a
real character than the book version.” (airplanepeanuts). In the novel, Evey’s character
was on the side of V while in the movie Evey still wasn’t too sure if what V was doing
was right. Same character conflicting one another from both book and movie.
Through out the novel, Evey’s character was much more promiscuous and
revealing than she was in the movie. Evey in the novel had a physical relationship with
Gordon, but in the movie Gordon was hiding the fact the he was homo sexual. In the
movie, Gordon tells Evey, “I didn't have to be Muslim to find the images beautiful, or its
poetry moving…I told you, you'll be the least of my worries.” (imdb.com). Gordon was
also referring to the pictures of other men on his wall that he had been with before, for it
was illegal to be gay and the punishment would be either prison or death. The reasoning
behind the change of story for the relationship between Gordon and Evey was because the
director of the movie wanted to only have a connection between V and Evey. Another
note on Evey being much more revealing in the book was the part where she walks out in
the rain completely naked with her arms spread out. In V For Vendetta by Alan Moore, V
says, “Five years ago, I too came through a night like the naked under a roaring sky.”
(Moore 172). In the movie she had clothing so it would keep Portman from revealing
herself.
The novel and the movie have very different endings based on what actions Evey
proceeds to take. At the end of novel, V ends up dying and Evey rightfully replaces him
to be the face of hope for the people in London and continue V‘s work. In the movie, V
does die but his death caused the end of the fascist government and gives the people the
power to start something new for themselves, not needing for Evey to take V’s place. In
the novel, Evey states, “I kneel, my hands are trembling, I can hardly find the fastenings,
but finally I lift away that maddening smile, and… … and at last I know. I know who V
must be.” (Moore 250). This is where Evey in the novel stands over V's dead body and
states she will become the new V. So Evey in the movie moves on with her life and Evey
in the novel becomes the face of hope.
Through out both the novel and the movie, Evey's change in course of action determines
how the story ends. Evey's character in the movie was more conservative and less revealing so
the actress could be more comfortable and make the character herself seem more in control with
herself. Evey did not have anything physical with anyone in the movie, except for the mask kiss
with V but that's because they wanted the romance and connection between the two. As the story
continued the more apart the Evey's became from each other, having an alternate ending for the
movie V For Vendetta.
government and get revenge on the people who created what he was, a monster. The book
and the movie directed by James McTeigue share many common attributes, but there are
many book and movie differences as well. Though the book and the movie share the same
story plot, both stories told are altered from each other through Evey‘s character, causing
a different ending for both the book and the movie. Evey's character change ended up changing the
ending of the movie from the book because both Evey's presented themselves differently. The
alteration happens along gradually through the movie from the book, eventually changing the end story
completely.
Starting from the beginning of the story, both Eveys carry them selves as different
characters. In the movie, Eveys character (Natalie Portman) leaves her apartment after
curfew to meet up with a co worker, but in the book Eveys character tries to sell herself
for money. In Moore’s V For Vendetta, he writes, “…Uh… would… would you
like to… uh… sleep with me or anything? … I mean… uh… for money?” (Moore 10).
The reason for the change in script was so Natalie Portman’s character would not be a
prostitute, giving a better front for Portman’s character and the actress herself. Another
part in the novel that differed from Evey’s character in the movie was the priest scene. In
the novel, Evey’s character stalled the priest in hopes that V would eventually come in
and do his thing, but in the movie Evey’s character actually ratted out V to the priest.
A blogger posted on his blog, “…the movie version of Evey was far less believable as a
real character than the book version.” (airplanepeanuts). In the novel, Evey’s character
was on the side of V while in the movie Evey still wasn’t too sure if what V was doing
was right. Same character conflicting one another from both book and movie.
Through out the novel, Evey’s character was much more promiscuous and
revealing than she was in the movie. Evey in the novel had a physical relationship with
Gordon, but in the movie Gordon was hiding the fact the he was homo sexual. In the
movie, Gordon tells Evey, “I didn't have to be Muslim to find the images beautiful, or its
poetry moving…I told you, you'll be the least of my worries.” (imdb.com). Gordon was
also referring to the pictures of other men on his wall that he had been with before, for it
was illegal to be gay and the punishment would be either prison or death. The reasoning
behind the change of story for the relationship between Gordon and Evey was because the
director of the movie wanted to only have a connection between V and Evey. Another
note on Evey being much more revealing in the book was the part where she walks out in
the rain completely naked with her arms spread out. In V For Vendetta by Alan Moore, V
says, “Five years ago, I too came through a night like the naked under a roaring sky.”
(Moore 172). In the movie she had clothing so it would keep Portman from revealing
herself.
The novel and the movie have very different endings based on what actions Evey
proceeds to take. At the end of novel, V ends up dying and Evey rightfully replaces him
to be the face of hope for the people in London and continue V‘s work. In the movie, V
does die but his death caused the end of the fascist government and gives the people the
power to start something new for themselves, not needing for Evey to take V’s place. In
the novel, Evey states, “I kneel, my hands are trembling, I can hardly find the fastenings,
but finally I lift away that maddening smile, and… … and at last I know. I know who V
must be.” (Moore 250). This is where Evey in the novel stands over V's dead body and
states she will become the new V. So Evey in the movie moves on with her life and Evey
in the novel becomes the face of hope.
Through out both the novel and the movie, Evey's change in course of action determines
how the story ends. Evey's character in the movie was more conservative and less revealing so
the actress could be more comfortable and make the character herself seem more in control with
herself. Evey did not have anything physical with anyone in the movie, except for the mask kiss
with V but that's because they wanted the romance and connection between the two. As the story
continued the more apart the Evey's became from each other, having an alternate ending for the
movie V For Vendetta.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)