I did a cover of "Safe and Sound" by Taylor Swift ft. The Civil Wars, and again, Colin Hammond accompanied me. There are 2 versions as I was experimenting with the reverb. Here is version 1, and Here is version 2.
This is a very beautiful song written for the soundtrack for The Hunger Games movie. It strikes me as being very much a lullaby, however it is also very sad-sounding at the same time. The song is also very high-pitched. It was stretching the upper regions of my vocal range when I sang it. Honestly, I think it was stretching Taylor Swift's vocal range when she sang the original as well. It has a very raw sound that singers often get when they are just trying to reach the notes. That sound was very good for the movie though. For those of you who have read The Hunger Games or seen the movie, you know that the setting is post-nuclear war, futuristic. In one way, the civilization has regressed considerably, while being incredibly technologically advanced in other ways. Because of this, the raw, almost unpolished way that the song sounds reflects the raw, unpolished lifestyle that the common people in Panem lead.
Now on to my thoughts about the movie. Unlike most movie-goers who have already read the book in advance, I actually did like the movie. In fact, I thought that the producers and actors did a really good job.
See, the book is written in first person, and seeing as movies are not filmed by the actors themselves, they're pretty much limited to 3rd person. There are ways that films can be almost 1st person, but that requires a lot of voice-over narration by the main character, and that is not as fun as seeing it on screen. These sort of conglomerates wind up with mostly 3rd person movies with random narration by the protagonist as are present in the Twilight movies. Usually, when producers try quasi-first-person movies, fans think the movies are extra bad because 1st person books don't have little quotes like "death is peaceful. . . easy. Life is harder." like Bella Swan says in Twilight when she almost gets killed / turned into a vampire in an abandoned ballet studio. No, what books actually say are things like "we lapsed back into silence as we finished eating. He cleared the table while I started on the dishes." (Twilight, page 37). It's not the kind of dramatic thing that sounds good in a movie.
So, because they had to transition The Hunger Games to 3rd person, there are things that have to be explained another way than in the original book. For example, in the book, while Katniss is narrating, she tells the reader about how "tracker jackers" were created and why they were used, since they are brought back in the arena. In the movie, they choose to show this part of the arena as if you were a citizen of Panem watching the broadcast. This allows them to have a commentator tell the citizens about the different dangers since otherwise, without Katniss's narration, the viewer wouldn't know the importance of them. After all, none of us are citizens of Panem, and "tracker jackers" don't actually exist.
I thought the effects of the movie were incredibly good. Granted, the dogs they had in the movie were not exactly how I had imagined them. I had pictured them looking much more wolf-like. But still, overall, it was great. The various fires seemed pretty real. The injuries were very realistic.
I even think the casting was over-all pretty good. (My second cousin is one of the children in the "reaping" scene. Though, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't pick him out in the crowd.) I must admit though, I do not recall Rue being the particular ethnicity that they cast her as. I thought it was nice that they had a bit of cultural integration, though it could be viewed as a little bit racist that they cast African-Americans to play the roles of the tributes for the agriculture district. You know, what with Civil War era North America using African-Americans as slaves on plantations. . . Just saying.
It has been a while since I have seen the movie because I saw it the day after it came out in theaters, and it has been about 2 months since then, and I haven't seen it again since. Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion, or any other details you'd like me to address that you missed.
Also, if you have an opinion you'd like to share about my song covers, please tell me. Which version do you think sounds better? Do you even like them at all? Any suggestions? Whatever it is, I'd like to know. Thanks for reading, and thanks for listening!
P.S. To all you Twilight haters out there, I'm very sorry if I ruined The Hunger Games for you by making those Twilight references. Then again, I've heard that The Hunger Games is the new Twilight, but on the other hand, I heard that Twilight was the new Harry Potter. So, if you're a Harry Potter fan, it's all good, right?
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
"Photograph"
I have recently sung another song that Colin Hammond wrote and accompanied. Here is a link to the lyric video of the song "Photograph." It was written about a friend of Colin's named Diana Dades. She is a photographer, hence the theme of the song. The video features her photography. Comment, share, thumbs up, bla bla bla, thanks for listening!
Friday, May 18, 2012
Uncovering Pretty Words
Poetry is a vastly under-appreciated art outside of certain circles of the art community. Reading is already mostly confined to 140-character bragging sessions or random details that no one really cares about. It seems, at least to me, that far too many people have dismissed reading as being boring, and poetry as being lame, or generally unappealing. To a certain extent, poetry can be generally unappealing if it's poorly crafted, but that's true of anything. I would like to offer that the only things that posterity remember about predecessors is which countries try to annihilate each other, and what art of the era is preserved and well-done. That includes writing. If it didn't, we wouldn't have literature classes, now would we?
People's opinions have varied throughout time as to what makes good poetry. Hence, there are many literary devices that may or may not be widely used now. Some writers and critics have argued that poetry should be didactic, and others have argued that it should be purely aesthetic, or convey emotion. Many poem forms have been popular, varying from ballads, to sonnets, to free-verse.
What actually makes something poetry though? Poetry does not, in fact, have to rhyme. It does not have to have a set meter. It doesn't have to be romantic, or sappy. It doesn't even have to-- ok, it DOES have to have words. The main elements of poetry are condensed idea, and relative precision. Epic poems don't count. That's just a fancy style of noveling, and it is so rarely done well, that it is almost never worth reading. That is just my opinion though, if you like epic poetry, then good for you. You are one of a very small crowd.
I generally hold that the most important quality deciding if a poem is of good quality is if it successfully portrays or evokes emotion in the reader. The second best thing is to use creative imagery and description. Neither of those matter though, if it seems like a writer is trying to hard. This is often the major problem with amateur poets trying to use rhyme and meter, but particularly rhyme. If you can rhyme naturally, great! Use it! If not, don't force rhyme, or you will lose meaning and value.
Anyway, my point is, that one should try to cultivate at least an appreciation for good poetry, and not just rely on not-always-well-written musical lyrics for culture. It would be great if people tried to write their own poetry, but you can't ask or too much. If you start reading the really good poetry, you may be surprised at how much you like it, and how much your writing improves!
As an aside, one of the best lyric poets currently well-known is Adam Young, or Owl City. If you listen to his music, I mean really listen, he uses great imagery, conveys emotion beautifully, and rhymes well without having to make up words, use ridiculous word-order, or fail to make sense. He employs an impressive vocabulary, and creates good allusions. he is also very easy to relate to. Might I also add that the music he composes very nicely compliments his words. If you aren't a fan of Owl City, you should be.
If you have didn't understand a single word I just said, either translate the page to a language you know better, or educate yourself on the topic, because this is obviously for you.
As Thoreau famously said: "We do not enjoy poetry unless we know it to be poetry."
People's opinions have varied throughout time as to what makes good poetry. Hence, there are many literary devices that may or may not be widely used now. Some writers and critics have argued that poetry should be didactic, and others have argued that it should be purely aesthetic, or convey emotion. Many poem forms have been popular, varying from ballads, to sonnets, to free-verse.
What actually makes something poetry though? Poetry does not, in fact, have to rhyme. It does not have to have a set meter. It doesn't have to be romantic, or sappy. It doesn't even have to-- ok, it DOES have to have words. The main elements of poetry are condensed idea, and relative precision. Epic poems don't count. That's just a fancy style of noveling, and it is so rarely done well, that it is almost never worth reading. That is just my opinion though, if you like epic poetry, then good for you. You are one of a very small crowd.
I generally hold that the most important quality deciding if a poem is of good quality is if it successfully portrays or evokes emotion in the reader. The second best thing is to use creative imagery and description. Neither of those matter though, if it seems like a writer is trying to hard. This is often the major problem with amateur poets trying to use rhyme and meter, but particularly rhyme. If you can rhyme naturally, great! Use it! If not, don't force rhyme, or you will lose meaning and value.
Anyway, my point is, that one should try to cultivate at least an appreciation for good poetry, and not just rely on not-always-well-written musical lyrics for culture. It would be great if people tried to write their own poetry, but you can't ask or too much. If you start reading the really good poetry, you may be surprised at how much you like it, and how much your writing improves!
As an aside, one of the best lyric poets currently well-known is Adam Young, or Owl City. If you listen to his music, I mean really listen, he uses great imagery, conveys emotion beautifully, and rhymes well without having to make up words, use ridiculous word-order, or fail to make sense. He employs an impressive vocabulary, and creates good allusions. he is also very easy to relate to. Might I also add that the music he composes very nicely compliments his words. If you aren't a fan of Owl City, you should be.
If you have didn't understand a single word I just said, either translate the page to a language you know better, or educate yourself on the topic, because this is obviously for you.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Black Tears
Before I mention anything else, I'm sorry to all the guys out there to whom this will not directly apply, but maybe this will help you understand girls a little bit better. To you girls, this will help you understand your mother better.
Guys, when girls are very close friends, we form a sister-like bond that makes us practically inseparable. We know that it makes us seem less approachable, but best friends are like security blankets. You see, that way, we can point and laugh at other people's outfits, hair styles, makeup, boyfriends, and other accessories. We can also confide in each other, or get advice about our outfits, hair styles, makeup, boyfriends, and other accessories. (Guys, there is the possibility that you are just an accessory if you are in high school.) With this almost all-transcending bond comes the sharing of many things such as outfits, hair styles, makeup, boyfriends (actually that's a huge no-no), and other accessories.
Girls, I am not positive that all mothers say this, but I know that my mother harps about about makeup sharing like you wouldn't believe. She is always talking about how unsanitary it is to share eye makeup, and even more specifically, mascara. If you're like me, the fact that your mother told you not to wear your friend's mascara because you don't know where it has been never really bothered you. First, in a pinch, many girls will opt to look pretty now, even if there is a chance that they may get sick later. Second, if she's close enough of a friend to be sharing makeup with, you probably know exactly where all her makeup has been!
Now, I really have not looked into the sanitation of it, but here is a good reason not to share mascara. Unless you have memorized exactly what mascara your friend is currently using (in which case you may need to branch out a little bit more), you aren't going to be thinking about what brand of makeup you're putting on your eyelashes. Your probably just trying to get your mascara even, whislt not getting it all over the bridge of your nose (trust me, everyone's done it, or at least gotten mascara on their cheek), and getting to your next class, or meeting your date on time. If you are sitting in class, and you sneeze, cough, stab yourself with a pencil while writing notes, or whatever, or you are watching the sad part or a romantic comedy that you dragged your date to, accidentally order food that you thought wouldn't be so spicy, get a text saying that your pet [insert type of animal here] died unexpectedly, or get broken up with, you will inevitably at least tear up a little bit. And when the puddles start forming in the corners of your eyes, the thought will strike you:
Sometimes, you may not remember, even if you're wearing your own makeup, and wind up rummaging through your handbag until you see the words "waterproof" on the side of the wand. But if you are wearing your girlfriend's facial push-up bra, whatever problem you are facing will pale significantly in light of the possibility that you are about to have little black rivulets streaming down your face, and streaking all your other makeup. SO you have to pull out your phone, and subtly text your bestie:
Then she will have to rummage through her handbag and try to tell you the answer before the traumatizing thought of turning into a zebra transforms you into a total watering-pot. If she says yes, then you get to blubber a bit, wipe your tears on a tissue/napkin/page of notes (which you will have to recopy from someone else later), and if she says no, then you will have to blubber a bit, wail, burst into a fit the size of Niagara, while your class and teacher, or date and the rest of the restaurant or theater looks on in shocked terror.
So the moral of the story is, don't wear your friend's eye makeup, no matter how desperate you may get. (Now, lip gloss is a whole other story for a different day.) And for guys, don't break up with your girlfriend in public.
Guys, when girls are very close friends, we form a sister-like bond that makes us practically inseparable. We know that it makes us seem less approachable, but best friends are like security blankets. You see, that way, we can point and laugh at other people's outfits, hair styles, makeup, boyfriends, and other accessories. We can also confide in each other, or get advice about our outfits, hair styles, makeup, boyfriends, and other accessories. (Guys, there is the possibility that you are just an accessory if you are in high school.) With this almost all-transcending bond comes the sharing of many things such as outfits, hair styles, makeup, boyfriends (actually that's a huge no-no), and other accessories.
Girls, I am not positive that all mothers say this, but I know that my mother harps about about makeup sharing like you wouldn't believe. She is always talking about how unsanitary it is to share eye makeup, and even more specifically, mascara. If you're like me, the fact that your mother told you not to wear your friend's mascara because you don't know where it has been never really bothered you. First, in a pinch, many girls will opt to look pretty now, even if there is a chance that they may get sick later. Second, if she's close enough of a friend to be sharing makeup with, you probably know exactly where all her makeup has been!
Now, I really have not looked into the sanitation of it, but here is a good reason not to share mascara. Unless you have memorized exactly what mascara your friend is currently using (in which case you may need to branch out a little bit more), you aren't going to be thinking about what brand of makeup you're putting on your eyelashes. Your probably just trying to get your mascara even, whislt not getting it all over the bridge of your nose (trust me, everyone's done it, or at least gotten mascara on their cheek), and getting to your next class, or meeting your date on time. If you are sitting in class, and you sneeze, cough, stab yourself with a pencil while writing notes, or whatever, or you are watching the sad part or a romantic comedy that you dragged your date to, accidentally order food that you thought wouldn't be so spicy, get a text saying that your pet [insert type of animal here] died unexpectedly, or get broken up with, you will inevitably at least tear up a little bit. And when the puddles start forming in the corners of your eyes, the thought will strike you:
Is my mascara waterproof?
Sometimes, you may not remember, even if you're wearing your own makeup, and wind up rummaging through your handbag until you see the words "waterproof" on the side of the wand. But if you are wearing your girlfriend's facial push-up bra, whatever problem you are facing will pale significantly in light of the possibility that you are about to have little black rivulets streaming down your face, and streaking all your other makeup. SO you have to pull out your phone, and subtly text your bestie:
Is your mascara waterproof?
Then she will have to rummage through her handbag and try to tell you the answer before the traumatizing thought of turning into a zebra transforms you into a total watering-pot. If she says yes, then you get to blubber a bit, wipe your tears on a tissue/napkin/page of notes (which you will have to recopy from someone else later), and if she says no, then you will have to blubber a bit, wail, burst into a fit the size of Niagara, while your class and teacher, or date and the rest of the restaurant or theater looks on in shocked terror.
So the moral of the story is, don't wear your friend's eye makeup, no matter how desperate you may get. (Now, lip gloss is a whole other story for a different day.) And for guys, don't break up with your girlfriend in public.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
"She Draws (Me In)"
I have had an extremely busy semester. I have still not been miraculously healed, so of course, I had inevitable make-up work to attend to that prohibited me from really doing anything fun or creative. One of the loveliest presents I have received this Christmas is free time. I have been able to catch up on writing poetry and reading other people's writing on Deviant Art, and I have actually just recently come into contact with an amazing opportunity. A fellow artist-friend of mine, Colin, and I were exchanging comments on several poems of both mine and his, when he mentioned that he had recorded several of his poems into songs. To make a long story short, I listened to several of them, and I was absolutely taken with the melodies he had composed for them. To shorten the story further, he sent me instrumentals and other various versions of many of his songs, and I recorded vocal tracks. One of them, a song called "She Draws (Me In)," is finished, and several are pending. Here is a link to the lyric video for the finished one.
I have been really inspired to sing recently. Maybe its the relaxation and relief of finally finishing the longest semester of my life, and maybe it's because I'm narcissistic and love the sound of my own voice. ;) But either way, I also have some other instrumentals by other artists I plan to record over this winter. I am devoting this break to art, much of which will be music, obviously.
Please, watch, listen, opine, comment, praise, share, bla bla bla, etc., ... this song in particular. Thank you all so much for listening!
I have been really inspired to sing recently. Maybe its the relaxation and relief of finally finishing the longest semester of my life, and maybe it's because I'm narcissistic and love the sound of my own voice. ;) But either way, I also have some other instrumentals by other artists I plan to record over this winter. I am devoting this break to art, much of which will be music, obviously.
Please, watch, listen, opine, comment, praise, share, bla bla bla, etc., ... this song in particular. Thank you all so much for listening!
Friday, August 26, 2011
Be a Green Steward
With the beginning of each new school year, comes a new science class. And attending a Christian school, there is always a chapter about Biblical worldview and the Creation Mandate. Though I don't blindly follow every extrapolation drawn from certain passages, I do agree with many of the science teacher's views about being "green" as part of the creation mandate.
Genesis 1:27-29 TNIV
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."
These verses stem the idea of the Creation Mandate. Essentially, God is telling the first couple (who were equally representative of God's image; God's image being incomplete without said equal representation,) to rule over, have dominion, or take care of the animals, plants, and the earth itself that God created. There are very few Christians who would believe that humans have no responsibility to care for the earth, though some more obstinate people balk at the idea because they associate "being green" with liberalism, paganism, and general conformity to the world. Another argument that has been made is that Christians should be looking to Christ's return and the new heaven and new earth, and that taking care of our current world is unimportant or worthless. Certainly scientists who believe the Bible would not make such arguments. Part of Ruling is having a good understanding of what it is exactly that you are ruling. Part of that is expressed by learning about biochemistry or astrophysics, for example, but part of it, we already know.
We know that the Industrial Revolution caused a massive increase in pollution that is steadily rising. We know that the ozone layer has been damaged because of pollutants that were ignorantly released into the atmosphere. Even if you didn't see the use of caring for the earth because it is not our final spiritual destination, one would surely believe in the sanctity of human life because God made humans "in the image of God." Part of the function of the Ozone layer is to protect the earth from excess radiation from the sun. UV Radiation is widely accepted to cause various types of cancer which may, or may not be terminal. In essence, reducing the pollutants in the air could help to preserve human life, which is always desirable.
A second area that sadly, many are severely lacking in is simply recycling. I can attest to this personally. I have watched people throwing recyclable bottles into the trash rather than the proper receptical at school so often that I find it embarrassing and appalling. In fact, recently I was so fed up with these observations that I sorted the recycling out of several of the trash cans in my school and disposed of them properly. The worst part of the whole situation, was that the garbage was located right next to a recycling bin!
While some Christians may feel that they are exempt from trying to conserve resources such as paper and plastic, either because they are "created by God for our use," or promoted by secular parties, I would argue that recycling is a vital part of humanity's obedience to God. for example, throwing plastic bottles into a trash can instead of a recycling bin would be creating more surface waste on the planet because not all plastics are biodegradable. Throwing paper into a trash can instead of recycling causes more trees to be cut down faster, aiding in the depletion of oxygen and increase in carcinogens which damage our bodies, and decreasing the quality of human life. Failing to deposit plastic grocery bags or newspaper protectors into the proper recycling receptical allows them to be carries by the wind to places where they impede traffic, suffocate animals, or even cause distractions to drivers and pedestrians which can lead to the death of one or more individuals. All of these examples would also be examples of poor stewardship of the earth because it is creating unnecessary waste and unnecessary consumption of resources. By recycling the plastic products, we save more petroleum compounds which can also release toxins into the atmosphere. By recycling paper, fewer trees must be cut down as often, and the trees which are turned into paper can be re-purposed over and over to promote optimal preservation of forests which are the homes and food sources for thousand of species of animals and other plants.
The last part, is that neither of the previous two points are too far out of your way or too difficult to accomplish. Most public areas have recycling stations for both paper and plastic, and a vast majority of privately owned businesses and schools do as well. Using products that are free of harmful pollutants are usually not that much more expensive than those which have the potential of being less environmentally conscious. Maybe part of the problem is simply being to ego-centric and selfish. trying to live a lifestyle that promotes a cleaner, more efficient earth provides a better world for those living around us as well as our posterity. When you consider that the generations following ours will have to deal with the problems created or not solved by our generations, we should have a reality check. Maybe we should clean up our own mess so to speak, as well as lightening the load of previous generations that future generations will one day have to shoulder. Bearing up one another in love is never wrong. Recycling is another way to love God, and love people.
Genesis 1:27-29 TNIV
So God created human beings in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."
These verses stem the idea of the Creation Mandate. Essentially, God is telling the first couple (who were equally representative of God's image; God's image being incomplete without said equal representation,) to rule over, have dominion, or take care of the animals, plants, and the earth itself that God created. There are very few Christians who would believe that humans have no responsibility to care for the earth, though some more obstinate people balk at the idea because they associate "being green" with liberalism, paganism, and general conformity to the world. Another argument that has been made is that Christians should be looking to Christ's return and the new heaven and new earth, and that taking care of our current world is unimportant or worthless. Certainly scientists who believe the Bible would not make such arguments. Part of Ruling is having a good understanding of what it is exactly that you are ruling. Part of that is expressed by learning about biochemistry or astrophysics, for example, but part of it, we already know.
We know that the Industrial Revolution caused a massive increase in pollution that is steadily rising. We know that the ozone layer has been damaged because of pollutants that were ignorantly released into the atmosphere. Even if you didn't see the use of caring for the earth because it is not our final spiritual destination, one would surely believe in the sanctity of human life because God made humans "in the image of God." Part of the function of the Ozone layer is to protect the earth from excess radiation from the sun. UV Radiation is widely accepted to cause various types of cancer which may, or may not be terminal. In essence, reducing the pollutants in the air could help to preserve human life, which is always desirable.
A second area that sadly, many are severely lacking in is simply recycling. I can attest to this personally. I have watched people throwing recyclable bottles into the trash rather than the proper receptical at school so often that I find it embarrassing and appalling. In fact, recently I was so fed up with these observations that I sorted the recycling out of several of the trash cans in my school and disposed of them properly. The worst part of the whole situation, was that the garbage was located right next to a recycling bin!
While some Christians may feel that they are exempt from trying to conserve resources such as paper and plastic, either because they are "created by God for our use," or promoted by secular parties, I would argue that recycling is a vital part of humanity's obedience to God. for example, throwing plastic bottles into a trash can instead of a recycling bin would be creating more surface waste on the planet because not all plastics are biodegradable. Throwing paper into a trash can instead of recycling causes more trees to be cut down faster, aiding in the depletion of oxygen and increase in carcinogens which damage our bodies, and decreasing the quality of human life. Failing to deposit plastic grocery bags or newspaper protectors into the proper recycling receptical allows them to be carries by the wind to places where they impede traffic, suffocate animals, or even cause distractions to drivers and pedestrians which can lead to the death of one or more individuals. All of these examples would also be examples of poor stewardship of the earth because it is creating unnecessary waste and unnecessary consumption of resources. By recycling the plastic products, we save more petroleum compounds which can also release toxins into the atmosphere. By recycling paper, fewer trees must be cut down as often, and the trees which are turned into paper can be re-purposed over and over to promote optimal preservation of forests which are the homes and food sources for thousand of species of animals and other plants.
The last part, is that neither of the previous two points are too far out of your way or too difficult to accomplish. Most public areas have recycling stations for both paper and plastic, and a vast majority of privately owned businesses and schools do as well. Using products that are free of harmful pollutants are usually not that much more expensive than those which have the potential of being less environmentally conscious. Maybe part of the problem is simply being to ego-centric and selfish. trying to live a lifestyle that promotes a cleaner, more efficient earth provides a better world for those living around us as well as our posterity. When you consider that the generations following ours will have to deal with the problems created or not solved by our generations, we should have a reality check. Maybe we should clean up our own mess so to speak, as well as lightening the load of previous generations that future generations will one day have to shoulder. Bearing up one another in love is never wrong. Recycling is another way to love God, and love people.
Sunday, June 26, 2011
I Am Number Four - Book vs. Movie
A lot of the movie "I Am Number Four" was consistent with the book. The book, as is often the case, covers a lot more actual story than the movie, which often shortens scenes, or combines multiple scenes into one. There are a few discrepancies with the book that I would like to point out in the movie.
After the introduction, the movie is correct enough to have number four, currently using the name "Daniel Jones", at a beach party at night. Unlike the book, however, Four is supposed to be on a boat, not treading water half a mile out into the ocean. Seriously, The first time I saw the movie, I thought there was going to be a shark attack. But he didn't pass out, and no one caught the obtaining of the 3rd scar on camera. When they left, they burned their important information, not six who was shown following them.The camera event is after four has developed his fire-proof powers and runs into a burning building to save his girlfriend, Sarah, but it isn't posted on a "They walk among us" website, in fact, the book says there is no such website.
Sarah, in the movie, runs a website called "Strangers in Paradise" for her photography, but in the book, once again, there is no such website. She takes several pictures of John, and it mentions her developing them in the dark room at school, but she is not trying to be a comical stalkerazzi as she appears in the movie. In the book, Four's telekinesis develops at Sarah's house when he accidentally breaks the lens of her camera because he is stressed about Henri's visit to the paranormal website operators. There is no camera with a pre-broken lens for her to give him, and he does not take a whole role of film up for pictures for her.
Which brings me to another point. The movie does not show him developing any of his powers. All he can do is turn his hands into flashlights. The movie shows him being protected from a fire by number six, who is in fact, not fire-proof. Speaking of six, she is casted as a white, blonde with an Australian accent, though she is supposed to be brunette, green eyed, and dark skinned, with no mention of any accent.
Six brings up another opinion of mine, I hope that Four will wind up falling in love with Six, and that they will be together forever on Lorien, and that he and Sarah will peacefully drift apart. Henri tells Four in the book, that once they fall in love they will be in love for their whole life, but even if he thinks he is in love with a human, he would still be able to fall into a much deeper, purer, truer love with a Loric girl, and then he goes on to mention that Four's parents were friends with the parents of a girl who is one of the 9 (now reduced to 6) on this planet. He says that their parents used to joke about them "growing up and falling in love and our mamas smiled and rolled their eyes, and said oh, my, my, my..." seriously, Taylor Swift aside. I think this is foreshadowing... I hope... that he and Six will fall in love, and that Six won't fall for Sam as she seems to be doing at the close of the movie. The only girl Sam is ever mentioned to be crushing on in the book is Emily, who is a friend of Sarah's.
The movie also does not show him communicating with animals, as is one of his other abilities. Speaking of animals, his "dog"/ lizard/ chimera from Lorien, called "Hunley" on their home planet, is named "Bernie Kosar" when Four, aka John Smith, arrives in Paradise, OH. That part was correct. But in the movie, giving him this name seems to be a bit of a joke between "John" and Henri (supposed to be pronounced ohn-REE because they are claiming that John's "father, really assigned protector, is french to cover up for his Loric accent,) though in the book, the name was on a collar tag already found on the animal.
Speaking of Henri, he does not die in the book until the final few chapters, during the battle, but he dies halfway through the movie, killed by Mogadorians at the home of the printers of "They Walk Among Us," though in the book, they escaped from the house without the mogadorians seeing them. When Henri dies in the movie, he is reduced to a pile of ash, though in the book, this only happens to the mogadorians after they die. In the book, Henri is cremated by Six, who can control the elements, and stored on a coffee can to be eventually taken back to Lorien and buried there.
There are many other differences, but I will not continue to list them, as this may make the movie seem like a dreadful waste of time. I really liked the movie. It was fabulously animated for the chimeara scenes, and the effects of the Legacies were incredible. The movie was thrilling. I actually screamed a few times! But the book was 1000X better. I would definitely recommend reading I Am Number Four, even going out of one's way to read it. It was so intense. I literally COULD. NOT. PUT. IT. DOWN.
After the introduction, the movie is correct enough to have number four, currently using the name "Daniel Jones", at a beach party at night. Unlike the book, however, Four is supposed to be on a boat, not treading water half a mile out into the ocean. Seriously, The first time I saw the movie, I thought there was going to be a shark attack. But he didn't pass out, and no one caught the obtaining of the 3rd scar on camera. When they left, they burned their important information, not six who was shown following them.The camera event is after four has developed his fire-proof powers and runs into a burning building to save his girlfriend, Sarah, but it isn't posted on a "They walk among us" website, in fact, the book says there is no such website.
Sarah, in the movie, runs a website called "Strangers in Paradise" for her photography, but in the book, once again, there is no such website. She takes several pictures of John, and it mentions her developing them in the dark room at school, but she is not trying to be a comical stalkerazzi as she appears in the movie. In the book, Four's telekinesis develops at Sarah's house when he accidentally breaks the lens of her camera because he is stressed about Henri's visit to the paranormal website operators. There is no camera with a pre-broken lens for her to give him, and he does not take a whole role of film up for pictures for her.
Which brings me to another point. The movie does not show him developing any of his powers. All he can do is turn his hands into flashlights. The movie shows him being protected from a fire by number six, who is in fact, not fire-proof. Speaking of six, she is casted as a white, blonde with an Australian accent, though she is supposed to be brunette, green eyed, and dark skinned, with no mention of any accent.
Six brings up another opinion of mine, I hope that Four will wind up falling in love with Six, and that they will be together forever on Lorien, and that he and Sarah will peacefully drift apart. Henri tells Four in the book, that once they fall in love they will be in love for their whole life, but even if he thinks he is in love with a human, he would still be able to fall into a much deeper, purer, truer love with a Loric girl, and then he goes on to mention that Four's parents were friends with the parents of a girl who is one of the 9 (now reduced to 6) on this planet. He says that their parents used to joke about them "growing up and falling in love and our mamas smiled and rolled their eyes, and said oh, my, my, my..." seriously, Taylor Swift aside. I think this is foreshadowing... I hope... that he and Six will fall in love, and that Six won't fall for Sam as she seems to be doing at the close of the movie. The only girl Sam is ever mentioned to be crushing on in the book is Emily, who is a friend of Sarah's.
The movie also does not show him communicating with animals, as is one of his other abilities. Speaking of animals, his "dog"/ lizard/ chimera from Lorien, called "Hunley" on their home planet, is named "Bernie Kosar" when Four, aka John Smith, arrives in Paradise, OH. That part was correct. But in the movie, giving him this name seems to be a bit of a joke between "John" and Henri (supposed to be pronounced ohn-REE because they are claiming that John's "father, really assigned protector, is french to cover up for his Loric accent,) though in the book, the name was on a collar tag already found on the animal.
Speaking of Henri, he does not die in the book until the final few chapters, during the battle, but he dies halfway through the movie, killed by Mogadorians at the home of the printers of "They Walk Among Us," though in the book, they escaped from the house without the mogadorians seeing them. When Henri dies in the movie, he is reduced to a pile of ash, though in the book, this only happens to the mogadorians after they die. In the book, Henri is cremated by Six, who can control the elements, and stored on a coffee can to be eventually taken back to Lorien and buried there.
There are many other differences, but I will not continue to list them, as this may make the movie seem like a dreadful waste of time. I really liked the movie. It was fabulously animated for the chimeara scenes, and the effects of the Legacies were incredible. The movie was thrilling. I actually screamed a few times! But the book was 1000X better. I would definitely recommend reading I Am Number Four, even going out of one's way to read it. It was so intense. I literally COULD. NOT. PUT. IT. DOWN.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)