More handpicked essays just for you.
Key elements of compare and contrast essays
College level compare and contrast essay
College level compare and contrast essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Footloose: The Evaluation of the Original and Remake
Both Footloose movies are almost the same, they were just created almost 30 years apart. The original Footloose came out in 1984, and in 2011, the remake of Footloose followed. Although there is hardly ever a remake that’s better than an original, this one seems to be an exception. If the viewer takes into consideration the acting and dancing of the characters, the plot and racial diversity, and the advancements in technology, they will find that the newer version is much better than the older one.
The original Footloose was made in 1984 and was directed by Herbert Ross. Kevin Bacon played Ren McCormick and Lori Singer played Ariel. The remake of Footloose was made in 2011 and directed by
…show more content…
Craig Brewer. Kenny Wormald played Ren McCormick and Julianne Hough played Ariel. Julianne Hough's acting was simply better than Lori Singers. Ariel was the preacher’s daughter, but she didn’t act like it. Ariel was rebellious, and her character was meant to be a badass. In the original, Lori Singer did an okay job as acting like a bad girl should. She played chicken with a semi while straddling two vehicles, which was a good example of how rebellious Ariel’s character was. But, overall Lori Singer wasn’t as convincing at playing the bad girl as Julianne Hough was. In the original movie, Ren sees Ariel at school and says “Ariel, right?” asking about her name, and she replies, “very good.” But in the remake of the movie Ren pronounces her name wrong and she turns around and corrects him, in a rude tone. He corrects himself and she says “very good.” And walks away. Julianne Hough’s personality is just simply bolder than Lori Singer’s is. When it comes to dancing, Julianne Hough has everyone beat. Julianne Hough is an actual dancer, she danced and performed on Dancing with the Stars, so of course, her dancing skills are better than Lori Singer’s. Kevin Bacon, on the other hand, is not very good when it comes to dancing. He had 5 stunt doubles throughout the original Footloose movie. He had a stunt double, a dance double, and two gymnastics doubles. Kenny Wormald did all his dancing his self, the only thing he didn’t do was the gymnastics in the “angry scene” because they didn’t want him to get hurt. Overall, Kenny Wormald is a better dancer, and considering the movie is about dancing, he was a better pick. The overall dancing from all characters is better in the remake. In the original movie, the actors jumped around a lot, there wasn’t a whole lot of actual dancing. In Christopher Lloyd’s review on the original Footloose he says “For such an iconic dance movie, Footloose is an odd bird of a movie with surprisingly little dancing” (Lloyd, 2015) which, the viewer could agree with. In the original Footloose, the dancing that was done didn't even look like dancing. It looked like they jumped around a lot and had no idea what they were doing. In the remake, dancing was more focused on and more detailed, like it should be since the movie is primarily about dancing. The remake does a great job sticking with the same story line.
Critic Mike Scott’s review from The Times-Picayune stated “Plot-wise, though, Brewer's "Footloose" is anything but loose. In fact, it's rigidly loyal to the original to the point of slavishness.” (Scott, 2011) The movies are both about a teen named Ren, who's from a big city and moves to a small town in the south where they have outlawed public dancing. Throughout the course of the movie, Ren finds out why dancing is outlawed and tries to overthrow the law. Even though the main storyline is the same, there are some other things in the movie that are different and those things make the remake even better than the original. For instance, in both movies dancing is outlawed because five teens were drinking and driving and died. But, both stories as to what happened is different. In the original movie, the teens are playing “chicken” with another car and they run off a bridge, but the viewer never sees this happen, they only hear the story. In the remake of Footloose, the movie starts off with the viewer seeing the teens wreck. The accident is much different, though. The teens are singing in the car and the driver looks over at his girlfriend, they hit a semi-truck head on and the vehicle catches fire. The second movie adds more detail and sets the stage better. The viewer gets to see what happened versus just hearing about it, and that gives the viewer a better understanding as to what’s going
on. A huge difference between the two movies is the racial diversity. The original Footloose is a complete white movie. In the remake of Footloose, they have added a more diverse cast. This is a huge gold star for the remake of Footloose. The diversity makes it feel more realistic than the all-white setting of the first movie. Diversity plays a bigger role now than it did because there are so many different cultures, races, and ethnicities now than there used to be. If a movie is more racially diverse then it could potentially increase viewers from different races just because they have something to relate too. In this case, it was a plus for the remake, making it better than the original from the very beginning. The different advancements in technology was another big difference in the two movies. The lighting was better in the remake. In the original, some of the scenes were poorly lite, and it made the picture harder to see. The graphics and special effects were better in the remake. The fighting scene between Ariel and Chuck in the remake, looked more realistic, along with the fight scene between Chuck’s crew and Ren and Willard. In the original the fighting scenes are overdramatic and they don’t seem very realistic. It also had a lot of new technology in the movie. Of course, the original Footloose was made in 1984, so the technology used by the characters was very different from today’s technology. For example, in the beginning of the remake, Ren takes his iPod and hooks it up to his radio, but in the original movie, Ren uses 8 track tapes. Another example of technology advancements is the scene in the movie where Ren’s friend Willard accuse him of having an attitude problem. During this scene in the original movie, Willard tells Ren that he may think that they live in a small town, but they have television and Family Feud. This would make the viewer today laugh because everyone has television and Family Feud is not as popular. But in the remake, Willard says you may think we live in a small town, but we have cell phone towers and computers. Those two types of technology are more relatable today, which could make the viewer relate more to the statement. Although both movies have very similar plots, one movie simply outdoes the other. Whether it's the acting and dancing of the characters, the plot, and diversity, or the advancements in technology the remake of Footloose simply outdoes the original Footloose.
For example, Mama goes to the bank in the movie and is given a hard time about paying her mortgage, but this did not happen in the book. Another major difference is that the school bus scene, where the Logan kids played a trick on the white kids, was not shown in the movie, even though it was an important part of the story. There are some character changes as well. Lillian Jean, Jeremy, R.W, and Melvin are Simms’ in the book, but in the movie they are Kaleb Wallace’s children. However, the main plot difference is how the movie starts in the middle, summarizing everything from the first part of the book very briefly. Additionally, many scenes are switched around and placed out of order. Altogether, the plot and character changes contribute to my unfavorable impression of the
The film Friday Night Lights, directed by Peter Berg explains a story about a small town in Odessa, Texas that is obsessed to their high school football team (Permian Panthers) to the point where it’s strange. Boobie Miles (Derek Luke) is an cocky, star tailback who tore his ACL in the first game of the season and everyone in the town just became hopeless cause their star isn’t playing for a long time. The townspeople have to now rely on the new coach Gary Gaines (Billy Bob Thornton), to motivate the other team members to be able to respect, step up their game, and improve quickly. During this process, racism has made it harder to have a success and be happy and the team has to overcome them as a family.
Friday Night Lights by H.G. Bissinger is a story about a football town. The name of the town is Odessa. It is a small town on the west side of Texas and football is the only thing that matters. Bissinger gives the reader a glimpse of what life is like at an area high school called Permian. Very few towns are obsessed with sports like Permian and Ringgold when it comes to sports programs. In this essay, Permian and Ringgold sports will be compared by their programs and values that they place on sports.
and the film was made in 1994. It was much more surrealistic because this version of the film was based on a young boy's dream. Setting The biggest difference between the two film is the setting and place.
Each version also has the main characters boarding up the windows. Anyone who thought the birds won’t attack are usually found dead, but in the movie they are found with their eyes pecked out. Also, both the story and the movie have REALLY bad endings! They aren’t very similar, but they both leave you hanging. When you see a movie or read a book you want to know what happens to the main characters. In these two, you didn’t get an ending. They left you hanging and for some people that ruins it all.
For all the differences the film had from the novel, it was basically the same story just told in a more cheerful way and was more about the Joad family. However, the differences did not take away from the film; they might have made the film even better. No matter how different the film was from the novel, they both have succeeded in their own respective fields and remain classics to this
Most of the arguments stem from the fact that not only were the two films made so close to each other but that the remake claims to be a fresh adaptation of the novel which many regard as being not that accurate as a reviewer states, "I've read the book, and there was certainly plenty left behind when Lindqvist wrote his screenplay. Unfortunately, Reeves hasn't really ferreted out anything new; on the contrary, there is actually less plot in Let Me In than in the Alfredson version." The original was all about how subtle it could be. It starts off slow and unravels as the protagonist get closer to this strange girl he has met. The remake goes in the complete opposite direction personally, but still holds a lot of the elements. For example the very first scene of the American version is a flash-foward in the plot featuring a disfigured man throwing himself off a roof apologizing to a barefoot girl who just climbed half of a hospital's height in seconds. This scene pretty much reveals that she is, one: not human and two: the man was not actually her father but still cared for her. In the original you don't get to see Eli, the vampire, in a "monster state" like you do with Abby, the name c...
Even though both films are highly reviewed, they both follow the same plot, but then have some major and minor differences. Herbert Ross and Craig Brewer directed an outstanding dancing film, that most American’s like looking at the reviews of the
Although I will always love the original, the script, the movie was so fun to watch. We got know why lady bracknell is who she is since she apparently was a dancer and got life by having a baby. We found out instead of hugging miss prism got engaged to dr. chasuble which was interesting. Although I want to say what the real change was in the movie compared to the script you got have to watch the movie all the way through. It will be the biggest surprise of your
...the 2012 film. And unless you are paying close attention you would completely miss Myrtle Wilson played by Karen Black in the 1974 version and Isla Fisher in the 2013 version besides the party scene in the apartment and her getting killed she is barely noticeable. Jason Clarke played a less wimpy version of George Wilson and he was abusive towards Myrtle. And looked capable of murder and if it wasn’t for the book he would probably flee instead of killing himself. Scott Wilson looked like a sad puppy throughout the movie and very pitiful and it seemed as if Myrtle was abusive towards him. He looked incapable of murder but also as if he would snap at any moment and would commit murder. In the end actors in the 2013 film I would say showed a lot more emotion through and through instead of concealing it and that is something that I enjoyed more than the 1974 version.
The most obvious changes are the physical elements of the film. People who are watching an edited movie before will realize that the backdrop is different before they realize that the music is different. Also, the balcony that the balcony scene took place in the 1968 version of the film
The Perks of being a Wallflower vs. The Catcher in the Rye After reading the first two pages of J.D.Salinger's novel The Catcher in the Rye I put the book down, I began dreading the idea of having to read it. My first impression was that it was going to be about some boring rich kid who had a passion for complaining, but one hour and two cans of coke later I had read almost 150 pages. The reason I picked the book up was that earlier that day I had finished reading Stephen Chbosky’s The Perks of being a Wallflower and decided to give Salinger a second chance. I did not think that I was going to enjoy The Perks having had seen the film
In 1984 director Herbert Ross released a movie called Footloose starring Kevin Bacon and so many other famous actors and actresses. Then in 2008 director Kenny Ortega was announced he was going to be directing a remake of the classic 1984 Footloose, but he left the project in 2009. But in 2010 Craig Brewer became the director.
Indeed, the movie and the novel hold many differences. Characters have changed, been eliminated, events have been left out, and relationships differed. Despite the changes, the film still managed to live up to the standards the book set. “Fried Green Tomatoes is a thorouly enjoyable move...,” says James Berardinelli quoted from the internet. Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in 1987, this novel has tons of material which changed in the screenplay. However, both works offer dynamic characters, an interesting plot, and charming dialogue.
Movies Have you ever seen the movies The Last Song, Footloose, and Polar Express. Watching movies is a distraction, when I watch movies I never get anything else done. My favorite genre of movies are romance. I like action movies too but it depends on who is in it.