The Birds, part two
Great start, folks! To finish up with "The Birds" I want you to compare Hitchcock's movie to the story by Daphne DuMaurier. Do not just mention the differences, but try to evaluate the movie. Was the movie better than the story? Why? In what ways? Was the story better than the movie? Why? In what ways?
In addition to posting your comments, you must also agree or disagree with at least one other person, saying why you agree or disagree.
posted by Anonymous at 12:28 PM
22 Comments:
The movie is more detailed as the story, i think if you see the movie you can understand the story better.
10/6/05, 2:17 PM
One advantage of the movie is that Hitchcock can show the birds graphically, that makes the movie more frigthening than the story. The same intention have the special effects and the sound of the birds the author could use in the movie. But I didn't like the setting of the movie: I think if the story has taken place in England or Scotland it would has been more frigthening, because I can't connect the sunny, happy place of California with such a story.
10/6/05, 2:48 PM
i disagree with Kathy, because i thought that the book was better than the movie. it was more suspensful and straight to the point, as apposed to the movie, which had a slow start, and didnt focus enough on the bird aspect. i didnt think the book or the movie was particularly scary. i thought that the movie would be better.
10/7/05, 8:41 AM
I thought the story was better then the movie because in the story there was more movement between events. In the movie there was a lot of time spent on a just one thing, like trying to find out a little girls name. In the book the sequence of events moved much faster, but it still gave enough detail. However, I do disagree with emma on one thing... that movie gave me the CREEPS!! I kept thinking about how it would be if the birds actually attacked, SCARY STUFF!!!!
10/7/05, 5:58 PM
I liked the movie alot better because I think it was explained, and told in more detail. The book was to short and ended to abruptly, as did the movie. I think that this should be changed in both of the storys. The book also didn't give me as much of a sence of suspence, because the birds were not as fierce, or scary, as the movie portrayed them. I also liked in the movie how the attacks were feared and noticed more, were in the book they were ignored until everyone was dead wich I think made for a worse story. So all in all I liked the movie better.
10/7/05, 6:40 PM
I disagree with eric because i think the book was a lot better than the movie. Because the book was scarier and you could create pictures in your head that could be really scary or not so scary. Also the movie was kind of fake. I had a hard time paying attention during the movie because it was so slow moving. One of the ways that the book and the movie were alike is the story like of the birds attacting. so in my opinion i think the book was better than the movie.
10/9/05, 1:05 PM
I also disagree with Eric....My opinion is that the story in our book was a lot better than the movie. I think that the book was more frightening and suspensful because it focused entirely on the birds. Also, the movie wasn't so freaky because everything seemed fake. I'm used to really graphic modern movies. I would have liked the movie better if it took place somewhere else too, the setting was kind of wierd. Both the movie and the book had endings that didn't really end. You know what I mean. Yeah, so that's all I have to say.
10/9/05, 1:40 PM
I agree with brooke and rhiannon. I thought that the book was better than the movie because it took a long time for the movie to get started it seemed like.Also, the movie was really fake and so it didn't seem scary, it actually made it funny in a way. So I thought that the book was better and easier to understand.
10/9/05, 2:18 PM
I think the story "The Birds" was better, it seemed much more exciting and real vs. the movie which was so slow. In the book you could picture every step of the story. I think the story was more straight forward and the movie took to long to play out and really get started.
10/9/05, 6:01 PM
Yea I would have to agree and say that the story was a lot better then the book because the story was really slow and I couldnt get into it and the book got right into the story. In the book it was kind of suspenseful because you could create your own pictures in your mind and you could make it creepy. But the movie was really fake and I didn't like it at all.
10/9/05, 8:29 PM
I thought that the book was better than the movie. I thought the book was more suspenful because there wern't corky looking birds flying around like in the movie. In the book you thought of real birds and not a lot of fake ones that were in the movie. I definetly liked the book better. I agree with what akasha said about the movie taking a long time to get started.
10/9/05, 9:46 PM
I thought that the book was better than the movie, becuase your imagination is always better than the real thing. like when we are reading we are imagining what the birds look like and stuff like that, but then when we see the movie we see how someone else saw it, and we might not have been seeing it the smae way. also, in the movie it took a long time to actually get into it. I agree with ben saying that the book was more suspensful.
10/10/05, 10:10 AM
The Brambling, is a small passerine bird in the finch family Fringillidae. This bird is widespread throughout the forests of northern Europe and Asia.It is similar in size and shape to a Chaffinch, but has a pale rump and lacks white outer tail feathers. It has dark back, orange breast and whitish belly. The large double wing bars are orange or white. The breeding male is unmistakable, with his orange underparts and black head and back. I got this info. at this site, http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/b/br/brambling.htm
10/10/05, 10:16 AM
I liked the movie better. I think I liked how I had a picture of whats going on and not just an idea of what it looked like.
I agree with Eric it explained it more and gave you a look of the birds and the damage they did
10/10/05, 10:20 AM
The Blackbird is common name in North America of a perching bird allied to the bobolink, the meadow lark, the oriole, and the grackle and belonging to the family Icteridae. The European blackbird, Turdus merula, is a thrush. Except during the breeding season, blackbirds usually travel in flocks. Flocks of blackbirds may be as large as 5 million birds, and they often do serious crop damage when foraging for food. I got this information at
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/encyclopedia/entry/blackbir
10/10/05, 10:24 AM
Great start. Yep, Claudia, you figured out how to get a blogger identity. That's great. That way nobody else can pretend to be you.
So far it seems like most of you prefered the story, but not all of you. Eric, Jessica, and Kathy, it seems, preferred the movie. Katie (Katarina) seems to be on the fence, but likes some parts of the movie (not the setting). The rest of you, so far, seem to prefer the story. Perhaps that's because the story was actually better... or maybe it's more that the movie was not to your liking.
I am a great Hitchcock fan, but "The Birds" is not my favorite movie of his. I think my favorite would have to be "Vertigo" or "Rear Window". Anybody seen any other Hitchcock movies?
Lastly... Molly and Haley.... can you post your bird info to the other forum please? Thanks. That way I can keep track of it better.
10/10/05, 12:27 PM
I agree with Ben. I thought that the book was better and had more details then the movie. Although the book left you standing so did the movie. The book also didnt tell a love story like ever other movie does. Thats why I thought the book was a lot better then the movie.
10/10/05, 3:06 PM
I agree with Kyle because I think the movie had to much stuff that didn't have anything to do with the main idea. The book was more to the point and was better. Plus, the special effects in the movie were bad which made the movie not as belivable as the book. The book was better.
10/10/05, 7:54 PM
In my mind the story is better than the movie because there is most suspense in that one.Furthermore the movie is pretty slow that make us feel boared.Time is wasted in the movie or perhaps it is to emphasize suspense but I didn't feel as feared by the movie than the storie.
10/11/05, 12:10 PM
I thought that the book was better than the movie because it was more simple than the movie. The movie was to long and did not follow the book at all. And that is why I like the book is better than the movie.
10/11/05, 12:14 PM
I definitly agree with atoine because the movie stunk. everything was bad about it. the book at least had some suspense and made sense. The movie was just terrible because it was nothing like the book. All movies should be something like the book that they were made off of. Nick is cool.
10/11/05, 12:16 PM
"(but dont get me wrong watching movies in class is fine with me)"
Very good point, Charlie!
Seems like most of you thought that the movie lacked something - and I would have to agree.
10/12/05, 9:17 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home