1984

I'm reading 1984 in my AP Language and Composition class, and so far, I'm not impressed. Granted, I'm only on page 99 of the actual book, but everything is so dreadfully boring up to that point. I've heard that it gets more intense as you get farther into it, and I'm hoping desperately that it does, or finishing it for the deadline will be the ultimate struggle. So far, it contains a lot of background information on the society that Winston Smith lives in, which I understand is crucial to the plot, but it doesn't make it any more intriguing. I need a book that jumps right to the point from the start and keeps you hooked until the end, and this book is not doing that for me.

It was written in 1949 as a fictional prediction of the future, and how Orwell imagined the year 1984 would look like. When you think about it, so far the predictions he made are almost eerie. They aren't necessarily true or accurate, but bits and pieces come close, such as the idea that the government will one day control society. It seems of late that the government keeps trying to establish more and more control over the people, and if we aren't careful, it could turn into Orwell's book. Another interesting point is that he wrote that the government could watch your every move via a telescreen. That's not far off, actually. I mean, security cameras and speeding cameras and satellites are everywhere. Not to sound paranoid, but we really don't have any idea of what the government is using them for because we don't have to knowledge or access to that kind of information. Just a thought: they could monitor every phone call you make. Isn't that just a bit ominous to you?

Anyhow, I have to finish the book by the end of the week, and if nothing more exciting than Winston going to work--again--happens soon, I may end up throwing the book out of the window. And then cry and go pick it back up, because I really have to finish this book and do a project on it for my class. Wish me luck, I might severely need it by the end of the week.

Movie Preference

Trailer Park Boys has to be the dumbest show I've ever seen. Seriously.
Why would you willingly subject yourself to that? And there's like more than eight seasons! Gah. It actually hurt my brain to see that much stupid stuffed into a half an hour episode, and I only watched one, and only because my friend demanded that I view it. Of course, he is a dude, but that brings up the question of why guys seem to like really simple and really idiotic shows like that.

I'm not trying to be sexist with that comment, it's just something I've noticed. Whenever you ask a guy what he wants to watch on a movie night, usually its something that either has really sexual humor involved, extreme profanity, no actual plot, intense violence, or nude women.

I suppose that the stereotype could go both ways, however. Girls are notorious for picking out the tear-jerking, romantic, moral-packed movies that probably bore guys half to death.

But that doesn't answer the question of why we pick those specific genres of entertainment. I'm a girl who loves action or sci-fi movies as long as they actually have some sort of character development or plot involved in them (The Lord of the Rings, Star Trek, or any Marvel movie are amazing examples). So, when I suggest those to a guy friend, usually they're immediately down for watching that type of movie. Many of my girl friends, however, normally look at me like I've grown a third eyeball. Don't get me wrong; I love John Green and Nicholas Sparks just as much as the next girl. Every once in a while I need a movie that's going to make me cry and contemplate life. I've also never seen any of the Fast and Furious movies, because I see no point in watching people chase each other around in fancy, fast cars while things blow up behind the. It's just interesting to me that we can usually predict the type of entertainment that our friends are going to want to watch just based on their gender.

It makes me wonder how much of that is nature vs. nurture as well. I'm inclined to lean towards nurture, because I grew up around Harry Potter and Tolkien, therefore I'd rather watch those than, say, Sharknado. But I suppose it also just depends on your personality and your sense of humor. What you're interested in largely decides what you want to watch in your free time, which makes a lot of sense.

May 1st!!!!!!!!!!!

Guys!!! Age of Ultron premieres less than a month from now!! Can you tell that I'm excited???!!! 'Cause I am! There are somany trailers and exclusive clips oit there on the web that its impossible to ignore the hype. One thing I've noticed a lot lately, however, is that with all the advertising and such, a lot of the time Clint Barton (a.k.a. Hawkeye) is excluded a lot of the time. I just want to know why Marvel thonks he is not as important as the rest of the Avengers. Isn't the point of them all being a team is that they wouldn't work without every single member? They have to all be together for them to be as effective as they need to be. I just thought that was curious... as well as extremely unfair. Just something for you guys to ponder when you stumble across merchandise or media footage that excludes our favorite archer.

Insurgent

Lately, I just haven’t been able to get excited about book-to-movie adaptions. I know that a lot of people say to view the adaption as something completely separate from the original work, but I just can’t do that. I feel like if the book was popular enough to be made into a movie, then they should stick to the true details of the book, not change them to try and “better” them. I mean, they have practically the whole script written for them! All we need is the visual effects, because as great as our minds are, it is completely different to actually see the stories presented before us on a big screen.

It seems like every time another book is made into a movie, I get so disappointed with the result. They all have so much potential, and yet they twist the plot and make the whole movie just seem ridiculous to me. Or they forget my favorite moments, or key scenes that are really important to the overall message of the novel, and I just can’t stand to watch the movie more than once.

The Hunger Games franchise was one that actually didn’t butcher the books. I was really impressed, and hopeful that maybe other companies and producers would see that sticking to the book can be a good thing—and make the movie really successful at the same time. I held high hopes for Divergent as well. I love Shailene Woodley, and I thought she would be the perfect Tris. And her acting was great—I just felt like the movie was lacking the appeal that the book presented.

Insurgent was the same way. It wasn’t a bad movie—it just wasn’t great either. I got bored throughout the middle parts, and I just couldn’t help but think that the ending was kind of a buzzkill. I mean, the movie itself didnt stray too far from the original work (except for that weird box. What was that about?!) Anyways, I just couldn't shake the feeling that something vital was missing from the heart of the story... but I just can't put my finger on it!
On the plus side, Shailene Woodley was just so freaking cute with her short hair. I loved it enough to cut my own the same way!