Twilight: Book And Movie Comparison Free Essay

Book explains more about bella and where she is from arizona, sunny vilie, attends high school, and her mom just married a pro baseball player and how she is a new changed person after she remarried from bellas father then mentions how she is getting ready to go stay with her dad in arizona| * The movie start with her getting in the car leaving to organ with her dad and doesn’t explain anything about who she is| * The book says less about her and her dad’s relationship and makes bella more distant towards him. * In the movie bella show more effort in having some kind of relationship and express more to him when she talks| * The book is more based on her at school and talks about how she feels at school. | * In the movie there is only a few scene where she is at school and it shows her not really talking just being an outcast to everyone. | * The book explains how the high school had scheduled Bella for an article on front page school newspaper because she is a new student coming from a big city an transforming to a small little town in forks. After all bella talks to school editer and gets him to not post her in newspaper. * In movie her first day it shows that the editor of news paper has a crush and becomes her friend and she also get him to not print the newsletter on her| * The book also explains about the town more and the history she has with it | * The movie doesn’t really say how much history she has with this town just talks about the little moments that she remembers when she was a little girl. | * She meets Jacob cause her dad is best friends with Jacobs father| * The movie is the same she meets Jacob because her dads is friends with his dad. | | |

In most successful novels, either a movie or TV show is made based on it. However, the book does not act as a script for the visual picture. Throughout the movie, viewers that read the book prior can spot many differences. Although many are minor differences, some greatly impact the storyline. In the book Twilight by Stephenie Meyer, differences from the movie such as Alice’s characterization, the technology, and the setting of where certain events happen change the original story. A major difference between the book and the movie was the characterization of

Alice. Alice, in both the book and the movie, is Edward Cullen’s adoptive sister. Bella’s description in the book made me imagine Alice as much different then as the movie portrayed her. When Bella first sees her she described her as being a short girl that was pixie-like, thin in the extreme, with small features. Her hair was deep black, cropped short and pointing in every direction. Further into the book, Alice develops into a character that is seen as being an optimistic person that is usually in a joyful and happy-go-lucky mood.

However, in the movie, when Alice first walks into the cafeteria, she is almost like a different character. Jasper, her soulmate, who is described in the book as being six foot three, is only a few inches taller than Alice who is supposed to be four foot ten. Her hair was surprisingly tame for someone who I expected to look almost like a punk. Throughout the movie, Alice seemed unexpectedly serious. She didn’t really joke around like a person that is always in a joyful mood should. Although she did show her optimistic side by telling Bella they’ll be great friends when they first meet.

Therefore, Alice’s character gave the movie a different feel to it than the book intended. Read more in Book Talk Another difference in was the devices Bella used. In the book, Bella listens to her music through a portable CD player. However, in the movie, Bella is seen using an iPod. Although this seems like a minor difference, it changes the stories setting. With Bella using a CD player, it makes the story’s setting to be more in the past. The Sony Walkman was popular in the US in the 1980’s and 1990’s. With this in mind, the reader imagines the style of houses and cars to be more old-fashioned.

In the movie, everything is modern. The Cullen’s house in the book is said to be white and old-fashioned. However in the movie, the house is seen to be brown very modern. The inside is furnished with new designer couches and the closes are full of expensive clothing. The kitchen is full of new appliances. Therefore, the technology Bella uses changes the setting of the story. Lastly, the places where Bella and her father ate were different. In the book, Bella cooked all the meals at home. This gave her a chance to bond with her father as Charlie would help out.

In the book, the relationship between Bella and Charlie improved with every meal and other activities they did together. In one of the earlier chapters, Bella went fishing with her father and states she was genuinely happy to spend time with her dad before starting school. In the movie, Bella ate with Charlie at the diner. It was always shown with one of them in a rush to leave. Their relationship seemed weaker in the movie. The two did not do anything together throughout the movie other than eat at the diner. Their weak bond showed when Bella left Forks without too much regret.

Therefore, where Bella ate with her dad changed their relationship. Ultimately, all movies have differences from their printed counterparts. Even minor details make big impacts. Alice’s characterization, the technology, and the setting where Bella eats can change what made Twilight readers enjoy the book. #2 I like most people loved the book before I even seen the movie. The book of course is five hundred plus words. The movie is just around 2 hours so the movie had to leave out some scenes and shorten roles in order to fit the time limit.

So after hours of reading and watching the movie a thousand times I feel safe to compare and contrast the differences I found. First lets start with the book and then finish with the movie. In the book the biggest difference is the three vampires who only show up when Bella is playing baseball with the Cullens. In the book, Bella and Edward met, and were both immediately intrigued by the other just from the first sight. After the van incident, they were hostile but still couldn’t keep themselves from wanting to be close to the other. And then, over a while, tensions give.

There are days and days and details upon details describing how these two find themselves unexplainably and helplessly in love with each other, no matter what. -In the book, vampires glow in the daylight so much that they can’t even go out in public without the most oblivious person seeing this phenomenon. But in the book, Tyler asks Angela. In Midnight Sun, there is a whole chapter where Edward purposely convinces Tyler to do this as Edward’s gift for Angela. In the book (and in Midnight Sun), it was a big deal that Bella was so ridiculously perceptive of Edward.

She guessed he was a vampire, she was the only one to notice his eye change, she guessed he could read minds, she guessed he couldn’t read hers. The book focuses drastically on the fact that Edward must take such a long time to ever be able to safely touch Bella, and he is always extremely hesitant of Bella’s constant advances, much to her dismay. Mr. Banner (biology teacher) from the book has been re-named to Mr. Molina in the movie. In the book, Victoria has fire red hair, while James and Laurent have short, cropped hair.

Also, Laurent is described as having olive toned skin. In the movie the three vampires are around from about the time Bella arrives. . In the movie, she stares at him for 5 minutes in the lunchroom, they have 3 minutes of awkwardness in Bio, a 2 minute awkward hallway talk, and then they’re dating. So later in the story, when Edward says something like joking about her as food or something else equally as creepy, the audience doesn’t realize that Bella can’t be creeped out by this because she loves him so much; they just think she’s some idiot girl.

And it made Edward seem like a complete creeper because they kept in all the stuff about him watching her at night, admiting how he likes watching her, and other stuff like that which would’ve been not so weird if his standpoint were actually illustrated in the movie. In the movie, they kind of have some glittery stuff on their skin, no more than if a regular person was attacked by a stripper. In the movie, Angela said she asked Tyler out.

In the movie, she only notices the eyes and only realizes he’s a vampire after the dinner in Port Angeles (or rather whatever different town name they used in the movie). In the movie, Edward all of the sudden comes on to Bella out of the blue in her room. He says something like, “I wanna try something… ” and he just makes out with her intensely. He doesn’t show any signs of resisting at all untill they’re about to take all their clothes off. Their appearances are different in the movie.

Hole In The Paper Sky 814 Word On The Change That Occurs Within Howard Ferp

Howard Ferp, portrayed by Clarke in the short film ‘Hole In The Paper Sky’ written by Howard Kingkade and directed by Bill Purple, is initially shown as an arrogant and self-centered man. However, his life undergoes a profound change when he crosses paths with an unexpected character called ‘Thirty Nine’. Thirty Nine happens to be a Dalmatian owned by the scientific laboratory where Howard works, serving as a subject for animal testing. While visiting the dog with some dog biscuits, Howard unintentionally witnesses the dog’s firsthand experience of suffering.

Later on, he removes the dog from the laboratory and lays it to rest, thus bringing an end to its agony. Howard experiences a change and endeavors to rectify his previous wrongdoings. At first, Howard possesses remarkable intellect as a math prodigy but is often skeptical. The short film portrays his discomfort and arrogance in various social situations. One particular scene demonstrates his indifference and scorn towards others as he attends a University lecture while engrossed in playing chess and listening to music through his headphones. Observing this behavior, the professor approaches Howard in order to inquire about the situation.

He selects a chess piece to get Howard’s attention, briefly comments on his knowledge of chess, and advises Howard to pay attention during lectures. Then he presents Howard with a math equation and waits for an answer. Howard recites the equation, solves the problem out loud flawlessly, and extends his hand to receive the chess piece without questioning his answer. This scene in the film does not primarily focus on showcasing Howard’s knowledge.

In fact, the scene in question was included in the film solely to highlight Howard’s transformation throughout the film and his initial arrogance and independence. The main plot of the film revolves around the changes Howard undergoes as a result of his interactions with a dalmatian named Thirty Nine. This dog helps to alter Mr Ferp’s stubborn and socially awkward nature, transforming him into a brave and warmhearted individual who is socially accepted. One could say that this experience gives him a new lease on life. The dog’s first impactful scene takes place in Howard’s office.

Thirty Nine arrives unexpectedly at the door, prompting Howard to try to get rid of the dog. Despite throwing a book at Thirty Nine, the dog keeps returning with it. Howard then tries throwing crumpled paper out the door, which the dog brings back and puts in the bin. Shortly after, the scientist who owns the dog enters, apologizes, and ignores Howard’s inquiry about the dog’s purpose. The following meetings occur in the scientist’s office and end with Howard feeding Thirty Nine.

Howard arrives at the office one day, carrying a pocketful of dog biscuits, only to find that the door is locked. In an attempt to peer inside, he creates a hole in the poster covering the window of the door. Through this aperture, he witnesses a tormented dog being cruelly restrained and subjected to experiments. This moment becomes pivotal for Howard and motivates him to return to the office late at night. By smashing the window of the door, he frees the dog from its agonizing cage. The death of the dog represents Howard’s complete transformation from an abusive individual and serves as the final piece in his journey towards becoming kinder and more pleasant. Thus, Howard’s odyssey from bitterness and unpleasantness concludes at this precise moment.

Howard’s journey has been relentless, leading to a newfound appreciation for life. He has undergone a transformative experience that has allowed him to adopt a more compassionate outlook. It seems as if he has consciously chosen peace after battling various challenges, daily routines, and anything that didn’t involve chess. In the film, Howard exudes a positive energy and smiles, marking a significant change. Additionally, he is strategically positioned in expansive areas with ample light and surrounded by people, suggesting his newfound openness towards others. Moreover, Howard sits without any barriers obstructing his connection with humanity, except for lingering habits from the past.

The film is unique in that it is the only good film that deals with the rapid transformation of a somewhat cold-hearted character due to unfortunate circumstances. The daring scenes reveal to the viewers just how awkward Howard Ferp is within the first few minutes. The audience is captivated as a simple dog manages to change him for the better. It is not solely the actions of the dog that bring about this change, but rather the haunting images of torture that Howard witnesses, which forces him to confront reality and come back down to Earth. This transformation is primarily conveyed through the skillful use of camera work and lighting, which is a testament to Bill Purple’s brilliant directing.

Pharmaceutical Industry And Drug

Chapter 21 Questions 1 through 7: On balance, do you believe Merck and Pfizer are ethical and socially responsible companies? Provide reasons for your answer.

In my opinion, both Merck and Pfizer are not ethical and socially responsible companies. This is evident in the case of Merck’s introduction of Vioxx into the pharmaceutical market. Scientists from the University of Pennsylvania discovered potential serious cardiovascular effects of the drug during testing on patients even before FDA approval. However, despite these findings, Merck disregarded the negative effects and continued to develop Vioxx solely to maximize profits.

Both Merck and Pfizer exhibit unethical behavior and a lack of social responsibility. Merck employed the tactic of “Direct-to-consumer advertising” to deceive customers into thinking that Vioxx was superior in safety and effectiveness compared to similar products. This deceitful marketing approach severely damages their ethical standing. Similarly, Pfizer chose not to withdraw Celebrex from the market despite being aware of its problems, mirroring the situation with Vioxx. Rather than prioritizing consumer well-being, Pfizer’s primary objective was to expand their market share by exploiting the circumstances. Regrettably, this decision poses potential health hazards for consumers.

How could the disaster with Vioxx have been prevented initially? In my perspective, Merck should have attentively heeded the advice of scientists from the University of Pennsylvania, warning that Vioxx could result in heart attacks and strokes. During that period, Merck should have recognized the potential health risks for individuals and taken steps to reformulate Vioxx. Additionally, as a local government, they should have regulated and supervised pharmaceutical advertising to prevent consumers from being deceived by false information. 3. What are your thoughts on pharmaceutical advertising?

Firstly, direct-to-customer pharmaceutical advertising has the potential to enhance patient awareness regarding medications. For example, individuals suffering from an illness may be unaware of certain drugs that can effectively alleviate pain. However, through television advertisements, they can discover these drugs. Furthermore, these advertisements not only generate greater profits for pharmaceutical companies but also contribute to the improvement of public health awareness. Nonetheless, there are drawbacks to DTC advertising. A majority of these advertisements fail to disclose the risks associated with the advertised drugs, as only 26% mention the potential side effects or causes of the condition.

In addition, the Journal of Health Communication (2009) asserts that certain advertisements excessively emphasize the advantages of drugs for patients. It is highlighted that direct-to-consumer advertising focuses more on describing the benefits rather than the risks of drugs. Consequently, I hold the belief that DTC is not an optimal approach for promoting drugs. It is necessary for relevant authorities to monitor drug effectiveness through associated advertising and educate consumers about suitable medications and practices to avoid. Additionally, it is important to analyze the concept of relative risk and its significance for drug companies, the FDA, tort lawyers, and consumers.

Despite the fact that drugs usually generate both positive and negative outcomes, like Vioxx – a painkiller that offers advantages to numerous patients despite the increased likelihood of heart attacks – this heightened risk could result in legal consequences and harm the pharmaceutical company’s reputation in the market. Nevertheless, if the company discloses the comparative risk to customers before product usage, it may diminish lawsuits against the firm while simultaneously decreasing sales.

The FDA, also known as the Food and Drug Administration, is under the United States Department of Health and Human Services. It functions as a federal executive department with its primary aim being to safeguard and promote public health. Its main focus is on protecting consumer interests in relation to food and drugs. However, regarding concerns about drug safety, the FDA affirms that it currently has no intentions of seeking additional regulatory authority to suspend such matters. In order for this action to occur, changes would need to be made to existing legislation. Hence, it is crucial for there to exist an appropriate board tasked with evaluating and approving drugs while ensuring that their benefits outweigh any potential harm they may pose to consumers.

Tort lawyers are benefiting from the litigation caused by relative risks, which is negatively affecting the pharmaceutical industry. However, consumers should be cautious of the long-term side effects of drugs and consider their overall health before making decisions, ideally after consulting with a doctor. In relation to this, do you think Merck CEO Gilmartin made a wise decision in recalling Vioxx?

Despite the controversy and potential heart attack connection, Merck CEO Gilmartin’s decision to recall Vioxx was considered unwise. This is because the drug had a significant market share and generated substantial sales for the company. Additionally, it had been on the market for a long time, providing many customers with positive outcomes. Sales data demonstrated that Vioxx effectively met customer needs. However, there was no conclusive evidence establishing a direct relationship between the medication and heart disease.

Multiple studies have demonstrated that the drug poses no risk. However, a recall by Gilmarin would suggest their acknowledgment of a potential association between Vioxx and heart disease. This could raise doubt among customers regarding the safety of other Merck products, potentially harming the company’s reputation and market shares. Conversely, if Vioxx is not recalled, Merck would be required to conduct further research to confirm its absence of direct correlation with heart disease. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that all medications carry side effects.

The company should communicate with customers about the initial negative effects of taking the drugs and also allocate resources to research a version of Vioxx that reduces the risk of heart disease. This action has the potential to assist the company in overcoming its present situation. According to a consumer advocate, “Merck’s accumulation of over $10 billion demonstrates the excessive profits these pharmaceutical companies are earning at our expense.” Let’s examine this statement. The pharmaceutical industry is highly lucrative due to substantial risks involved and a steady customer base. When a new product succeeds, it can yield significant profits for drug companies.

Despite the potential negative health effects of drugs, the majority of customers actually experience benefits from them. However, there is a small percentage of unsatisfied customers who may voice complaints about these drugs. Moreover, for customers who are willing to pay any price for effective treatment, drugs can be quite costly. As a result, the credibility of the pharmaceutical industry with its customers is declining. Some comments even suggest that the drug industry influences the FDA in a disgraceful manner.

The role of the FDA is to regulate and ensure consumer safety within the drug industry; however, it often faces challenges in controlling and rectifying issues. The drug industry frequently finds ways to bypass FDA regulations and make profits without technically breaking the law. Although the FDA has authority to remove hazardous drugs from the market, this process can take years. Most products on the market do not pose immediate health hazards but may still have potential risks.

Effectively overseeing every product on the market and ensuring safety becomes a challenging task for the FDA due to limited funds in each department. Therefore, it becomes crucial for government authorities to reconsider drug safety regulations while taking into account these factors.

To address pertinent inquiries, please refer to the Information Boxes on Pages 342 and 346.

In order to maximize societal benefits, it is important for drug companies to behave ethically.

Can the new board effectively address drug safety concerns? Although responsible for postmarket regulatory services, its potential to enhance drug utility safety is limited in preventing significant harm from medications with severe side effects. The board’s main objective is to ensure the safety and effectiveness of drugs after approval and market entry, as clinical trials may not detect all side effects. Some adverse effects only manifest when taken in high doses or over a prolonged duration.

The board’s role is to examine reports of severe and unexpected negative responses to medical products from manufacturers, clinicians, and patients in order to improve public health and product safety. However, it lacks the authority to withdraw drugs from distribution. It is worrying that Celebrex, a medication similar to Vioxx, continues to be sold despite evidence suggesting a 20 percent increase in the risk of heart attack and stroke for patients. The board requires greater power in order to enhance its efficacy.

Ensuring drugs with harmful effects do not enter the market is more crucial than removing them after prolonged usage. The FDA should prioritize guaranteeing the safety of existing drugs available to consumers. Companies have the ability to promote their drugs effectively, potentially leading customers to use them. However, if these medications possess serious side effects, they can endanger a significant population. Consequently, the FDA must establish a more efficient, unbiased, and stringent control over both premarket approval and postmarket surveillance procedures.

In my opinion, all of these practices should be curbed as they can increase the possibility of potential conflicts and compromise the patients’ interests, despite their legality. The financial relationships between doctors and drug companies lead to questions about the influence on prescribing patterns and research results. It is more likely for doctors to prescribe drugs they are familiar with rather than unfamiliar ones. Additionally, when doctors give speeches for drug companies or specific drugs, it can create a perception of safety and effectiveness in patients.

The aim of providing small gifts and free samples is not to manipulate doctors into endorsing drugs, but rather to create a sense of familiarity and comfort with the products. Doctors, because of their profession and authority, can be an effective marketing tool. Although most doctors are capable of accurately assessing research quality, their interaction with pharmaceutical companies could undermine the credibility of their reports and impact clients’ subsequent actions. This may hinder the progress of new drug development.

Complete transparency in marketing practices between pharmaceutical companies and doctors is crucial for effectively resolving the problem of conflict of interest and influence in drug prescription. Additionally, it is vital to disclose financial relationships between doctors and patients to enable well-informed decisions about medications. The text encourages further research on the current status of Merck and Vioxx, a globally recognized company known for commendable social initiatives in 2011. Furthermore, it emphasizes Vioxx’s favorable market position as a high-quality drug.

Merck has made several significant acquisitions. In 2006, it acquired Serono S. A., the largest biotech firm in Switzerland, for $13.2 billion, making it the 7th largest company in the pharmaceutical/biotech sector. Later, in 2009, Merck purchased Schering-Plough, the leading global producer of oral contraceptives, for $41.1 billion. Additionally, in 2010, Merck bought Millipore Corporation for $7.2 billion; a well-known international biosciences company known for its micrometer pore-size filters and tests.

Pfizer’s Celebrex remains on the market without any recalls.

The FDA’s new oversight committee has significantly improved drug safety measures. After a controversial incident occurred, various entities such as mainstream media outlets, medical magazines, customer protection organizations, lawmakers and even FDA staff have shown increased interest in the regulatory actions taken by the authoritative organization FDA to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future.

In the past, the FDA placed too much trust in the reputation of certain well-known companies. Although the examination process was rigorous before a medical product was released, oversight would diminish or become more lax once the product was available on the market. Following the recall of VIOXX, a new oversight committee was established to strengthen monitoring of drug safety after the launch of any medical product, ensuring that similar incidents would not occur again.

Has the drug industry made any progress in improving its public perception? Yes, the recall of VIOXX has negatively impacted the public perception of the drug industry.

In the first place, these events would decrease customers’ trust in the safety of drugs. Customers would be uncertain when selecting a medical option, and everyone would fear falling ill. Additionally, hospitals and doctors who rely on these medications would face confusion when treating patients. If medical accidents occur, it would be challenging to assign responsibility. 6. Has the drug industry restricted consumer advertising? What about extensive marketing spending on doctors? No, consumer advertising by the drug industry remains unchanged.

Due to the importance of drugs in daily life, customers relied on advertisements and doctors’ recommendations to identify them. In my view, the substantial marketing expenses directed towards doctors may involve interactions between drug company representatives and the provision of gifts. These representatives often attempt to promote the newest and priciest products to doctors, even if they may not be the most superior options. Furthermore, gifts are offered to persuade doctors into accepting their drugs.