The Hunger Games Movie Essay Example for Free

The Hunger Games Movie Essay The Hunger Games book and movie are great. Well, if you have seen them you clearly see that the movie and the book’s plots are relatively similar, but there are a few differences between the movie and the book. Although they bear some seeming variances, the similarities between the Hunger Games book and the Hunger Games movie are pronounced. To begin, the Hunger Games movie is a very interesting movie that is modified in order to clarify several concepts that cannot be presented as they were written by Suzanne Collins. To interpret this idea, the Hunger Games movie was altered so the viewers could understand many ideas that Suzanne Collins wrote, but could not be incorporated into the movie in the same way. For example, the idea that the items and the obstacles in the arena were created and controlled by the Gamemakers is depicted in the movie when the Gamemakers create graphics of mutations and then drag them to where they want to place them. Once they are released, the mutations come to life in the arena. On the contrary, the Hunger Games book contains the original content and ideas; however, the Hunger Games movie contains slightly different content and does not represent the same intentions. In other words, the Hunger Games book had no modifications made to it because it has the original material. To illustrate this point, in the book, as Madge bids farewell to Katniss before she leaves to the Capitol, she gives Katniss the mockingjay pin so she can wear it as the token from her district in the Games. However this concept was modified and in the movie someone who appears to be Greasy Sae gives Katniss the mockingjay pin. Then, Katniss gave the pin to Primrose as a symbol of protection at the reaping. As Primrose says farewell to her sister, she returns the pin to her as a sign of protection as well. These two gestures are clearly different, when Madge gives Katniss the pin it is with the intention that the pin will be her token from her district in the Games, with the intention that Katniss will show pride in her district. Meanwhile, Primrose gives Katniss the pin with the intention that the pin will protect her during the Games. More importantly, the Hunger  Games boo k and the Hunger Games movie contain unquestionable similarities. â€Å"May the odds be ever in your favor.† This famous phrase that Suzanne Collins wrote in the book appears throughout the movie. This phrase was portrayed in the book as words people would joke about, but in reality they realized that it was very devastating, for in fact the odds were not in their favor. The idea of how this phrase was viewed in the book was delicately portrayed in the movie when Gale told Katniss his name was in the reaping forty-two times. Not only was this a devastating amount of times because he was eighteen, but because he took out tesserae for his siblings, so they would not have to risk their chances of being chosen to participate in the Games, and his mom. Furthermore, the producer of the Hunger Games movie carefully depicted Cinna as he was described by Suzanne Collins in the book. In the book, Katniss contemplated, â€Å"I’m taken aback by how normal he looks. Most of the stylists they interview on television are so dyed, stenciled, and surgically altered they’re grotesque. But Cinn a’s close-cropped hair appears to be its natural shade of brown. He’s in a simple black shirt and pants. The only concession to self-alteration seems to be metallic gold eyeliner that has been applied with a light hand.† The producer of the movie did an outstanding job portraying Cinna. In the movie, the stylists and the civilians of the Capitol dress absurd. They had colored hair, crazy hair styles, strange wardrobes, unnatural skin colors, and a more than necessary amount of makeup on. Meanwhile in the movie, Cinna dressed casually, meaning no crazy wardrobes or crazy hair, simply just a layer of metallic gold eyeliner. He was portrayed exactly like this in both the movie and the book. In addition, the producer did a tremendous job creating the seam environment on the reaping day, as it resembles what Suzanne Collins wrote in the book about the seam on the reaping day. Collins wrote from Katniss’ perspective saying, â€Å"But today the black cinder streets are empty. Shutters on the squat gray houses are closed. Our house is almost at the the edge of the seam. I only have to pass a few gates to reach the scruffy field called the Meadow. Separating, the Meadow from the woods, in fact enclosi ng all of District 12, is a high chain-link fence topped with barbed-wire loops.† The scenes in the movie that show the seam during the morning of the reaping day resemble this description from the book. It was important for the producer of the movie to capture the essence that the  reaping day causes. The reaping is not a happy or joyful event it is very depressing and devastating, therefore it was crucial for Suzanne Collins to describe the day of the reaping as deserted and to describe everyone as keeping to themselves on this day. The movie captured the mood and tone that the reaping day was very depressing. While some differences between the Hunger Games book and the Hunger Games movie are evident, the similarities are striking. The Hunger Games movie was slightly altered to incorporate and express the same ideas expressed in the book. However, the Hunger Games book contains the original material that was interpreted into the movie with different intentions. Despite having these differences, the similarities between these two topics are that they both exhibit that the odds are not in their favor, they both portray Cinna as normal dressed and casual, and in the movie, and the seam resembles and captures the mood and tone of the seam that Suzanne Collins wrote about in the book. It is evident that the Hunger Games book and the Hunger Games movie contain more similarities than differences because the only differences were concepts and ideas that needed modification.

Essay --

Generic Strategy of Thermofisher Scientific R&D: Ever since they put the hold onto their industry they also believed to the fact that R&D is one such thing which can bring them apart from other competitors so they largely invested in it since the inception. In 2011, they spent approximately $340 million on R&D which helped them launching the Q Exactiveâ„ ¢ system, latest innovation in hybrid mass spectrometry. In 2010, they increased their total R&D investment by more than $40 million strengthened their leadership position in innovation. M&A: In 2012, they also invested $1.1 billion on complementary acquisitions that expanded their offering for their customers and strengthened their strategic position. In 2010, They invested then $600 million to complete 11 acquisitions that extrapolated their existing capabilities in promising technologies and markets such as New Zealand. With the acquisition of that region’s premier provider of laboratory chemicals and consumables, Lomb Scientific they capped off the year by announcing their acquisition of Dionex Corporation for $2.1 billion, which created an industry-leading chromatography offering for their customers. Geographical expansion: They expanded to different geographies like India, China etc which helped in pruning their cost structure and bring out competitive products in the market. Growth Strategy in Year 2004 In 2004, they made couple of investments which lowered the costs & gave them the opportunity to expand globally. They opened a facility for HyClone cell-culture products in Beijing and Kuala Lumpur. They also completed plant expansion in both Switzerland and Penssylvania responding to the growth in clinical tests. They also expanded their England facility owing to the rising ... ...quality control analysis in applied markets, such as environmental, chemical and food safety. Other was iCAP Q mass spectometry system which was a reliable, easy-to-use workhorse for customers performing routine analysis or complex clinical research. They also strengthened their leading offering of portable instruments by the launch of the TruNarc analyzer, which put spectroscopy in the hands of law enforcement for the identification of narcotics. In biosciences, they introduced the PikoReal PCR system. In immunodiagnostics, they expanded their leading offering of tests for the diagnosis and monitoring of allergies, asthma and autoimmune diseases. They also invested $1.1 billion on complementary acquisitions that expanded their offering for their customers and strengthened their strategic position. The largest was One Lambda, which they completed in September 2012.

The Boston Tea Party

The Boston Tea Party was a significant event in the years leading up to the American Revolution. By 1773 tensions were mounting as British America’s relationship with Mother England became increasing strained. The British Empire has secured victory in the French and Indian Wars but had run up an incredible war debt. King George III and the British Government looked to taxing goods in the American colonies as a means to replenish its treasury. It was in this the passing of the Tea Act 1773 that ignited a standoff and brought the issue of taxation without representation in Parliament to head.As a result, the colonists took action and began overt revolt to British rule in the Americas (Boston Tea Party Historical Society). This paper will explore the incidents that led up to the Boston Tea Party and its impact on subsequent events leading up to the American Revolution. The incident that has been termed the Boston Tea Party occurred on December 16, 1773, when government officials in Boston refused to return three shiploads of taxed-imposed tea to Britain. A group of colonists boarded the ships in disguise and destroyed the tea by throwing it into Boston Harbor (BTPHS).The Tea Act of 1773 essentially allowed one of Britain’s greatest commercial interests of the day, The East India Company, a monopoly over tea imports to all British colonies. Due to increased competition from the Dutch and the already high tax the Crown placed on tea, the East India Company had a surplus of tea. The solution that King George III and Parliament came up with was to force this tea on the colony (Knollenberg 93). Basically, a captive market was created for British products by the British Government. There was fear amongst the colonists that this could extend to products other than tea.The colonists’ actions and the government reaction widened an already growing chasm between Crown and colonists (Larabee 106). During the years of 1754 through 1763, the British Empire was involved in The French and Indian War, a protracted conflict with rival power France for control of settlements in America. The French allied themselves with Native American tribes to rid the colonies of the British. At the end of this conflict, Britain was successful in securing the conquest of Canada. During this period of time, the thirteen American colonies flourished and grew ncreasingly less dependent on Great Britain. With the need to re-establish control over the Colonies and recoup their war costs, Parliament passed a series of acts to which did nothing but agitate the already frustrated colonists and further strain relations between the Crown and the Colonies (Cave 2004). There were two major actions by Parliament that exacerbated the already strained relationship with the Colonies. First, the Stamp Act of 1765 met with significant colonial resistance. This act required that printed material in the colonies carry a tax stamp.These printed materials included: legal docu ments, magazines, newspapers and other types of paper frequently used throughout the colonies (Goldfield 144). Second, Parliament passed the Townshend Acts. These five Acts has the purpose to raise revenue in the colonies to pay the salaries of governors and judges so that they would be independent of colonial control, to create a more effective means of enforcing compliance with trade regulations, to punish the province of New York for failing to comply with the 1765 Quartering Act, and to establish the precedent that the British Parliament had the right to tax the colonies (Larabee 32-33).Both items created resentment and highlighted the issue of taxation without representation. The Boston Tea Party event was not a singular incident and it had very little to do with the tea itself. The tea shipment became a sticking point between the British and the colonists as it was the taxation on the tea that was objectionable. The core issue of being taxed without having fair legislative say in the government had been a recurring theme in the years leading up to 1773. When the Boston Tea Party incident took place, the more militant colonists felt they had no other options available to them.Previous complaints or entreaties to Parliament, Prime Minister Lord North, or King George III went without resolution (Alexander 126). As such they took matters into their own hands. American Patriot Samuel Adams argued at the time that the incident was not the act of a lawless mob, but rather a protest based on principle. The colonists felt their rights were eroding and were moved to action (Alexander 129). The fallout from the Boston Tea Party was severe and greatly impacted the economy of Boston. Authorities in Britain and the colonies were outraged and felt that this action could not go unpunished.A series of acts were passed by Parliament in 1774 that were collectively called the â€Å"Coercive Acts. † The Boston Port Act closed the Port of Boston as punishment until the destroyed tea was paid for in full and the king was satisfied that Boston was firmly under British control. This created animosity as it affected all of Boston, regardless of connection with the Boston Tea Party and did not allow for a defense to be given against the charges. The Massachusetts Government Act took away the colonists’ ability to select their own local officials.All members of the colonial government had to be appointed by the governor or king. This reverberated throughout the colonies as it was feared that such a thing could happen elsewhere (Ammerman 9-10). The Administration of Justice Act allowed the governor to move trials of accused royal officials to another colony or to Great Britain if he believed the official could not get a fair trial in Massachusetts. Although the act stipulated that witnesses would be paid for their travel expenses, in practice few colonists could afford to leave their work and travel to England to testify in a trial.There was also there fear that British officials could harass American colonists and escape justice. The Quartering Act applied to all of the colonies, and sought to create a more effective method of housing British troops in America. Previously, the colonies had been required to provide housing for soldiers. However, colonial legislatures had not been cooperative. Here under this act the governor was allowed to house soldiers in other buildings if suitable quarters were not provided (Ammerman 10). The Coercive Acts did not have the desired effect.The British felt that these acts would isolate radicals in the colonies and push the American colonists to concede the authority of Parliament over their own elected governments. Great Britain miscalculated how these would be taken and soon learned that harsh nature of these acts galvanized support against Parliament. Many viewed the Coercive Acts as a violation of their constitutional rights, their natural rights, and their colonial charters. They ther efore viewed the acts as a threat to the liberties of all of British America, not just Massachusetts.The acts promoted sympathy for Massachusetts and encouraged colonists from the otherwise diverse colonies to form the First Continental Congress. The Continental Congress created the Continental Association, an agreement to boycott British goods and, if that did not get the Coercive Acts reversed after a year, to stop exporting goods to Great Britain as well. The Congress then also pledged to support Massachusetts in case of attack. Which of course meant that all of the colonies would be drawn into the American Revolutionary War began at Lexington and Concord (Ammerman 15).Over time, the Boston Tea Party has become synonymous with unfair taxation and the abuse of government overstepping its boundaries. In 1773 Boston, the seeds of the American Revolution were being sewn. Through miscalculation and sheer abuse of the colonial system, Britain strengthened support for a growing movement toward independence. The Boston Tea Party then became more than a principled protest action against taxation; it became an event that demonstrated that a power cannot sustain rule with â€Å"consent of the governed. † The governed in this case, went on to fight and die for their rights. For the British government, its shortsightedness brought about its own downfall in this case.Works Cited Alexander, John K. Samuel Adams: America's Revolutionary Politician. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman ; Littlefield, 2002. Print. Ammerman, David. In the Common Cause: American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774. New York: Norton, 1974. Print. Cave, Alfred A. The French and Indian War. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2004. Web. 12 February 2010. Knollenberg, Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution, 1766–1775. New York: Free Press, 1975. Print. Labaree, Benjamin Woods. The Boston Tea Party. Originally published 1964. Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1979. Print. â€Å"W hat Was the Boston Tea Party? † Boston Tea Party Historical Society. 2008. Web. 12 February 2010. Goldfield, David R. , Dejohn-Anderson, Virginia and Abbot, Carl. The American journey: a history of the United States. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2009. Print. Young, Alfred F. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. Print.

What Was the Red Terror

The Red Terror was a program of mass repression, class extermination and execution carried out by the Bolshevik government during the Russian Civil War. The Russian Revolutions In 1917 several decades of institutional decay, chronic mismanagement, rising political awareness, and a terrible war caused the Tsarist regime in Russia to be confronted by such a large rebellion, including the loss of the militarys loyalty, that two parallel regimes were able to take power in Russia: a liberal Provisional Government, and a socialist soviet. As 1917 progressed the PG lost credibility, the soviet joined it but lost credibility, and extreme socialists under Lenin were able to ride a new revolution in October and take power. Their plans caused the start of a civil war, between the Bolshevik reds and their allies, and their enemies the Whites, a large range of people and interests who were never properly allied and who would be defeated because of their divisions. They included right-wingers, liberals, monarchists and more. The Red Terror and Lenin During the civil war, Lenins central government enacted what they called the Red Terror. The aims of the  were twofold: because Lenin’s dictatorship seemed in danger of failing, the Terror allowed them to control the state and reforge it through terror. They also aimed to remove whole classes of state ‘enemies’, to wage a war by the workers against bourgeois Russia. To this end, a massive police state was created, which operated outside the law and which could arrest seemingly anyone, at any time, who was judged a class enemy. Looking suspicious, being in the wrong time at the wrong place, and being denounced by jealous rivals could all lead to imprisonment. Hundreds of thousands were locked up, tortured and executed. Perhaps 500,000 died. Lenin kept himself apart from the daily activity like signing death warrants, but he was the driving force that pushed everything up the gears. He was also the man who canceled a Bolshevik vote banning the death penalty. Channeling the Anger of the Russian Peasants The Terror wasn’t purely a creation of Lenins, as it grew out of the hate-filled attacks which vast quantities of the Russian peasants directed against the perceived better off in 1917 and 18. However, Lenin and the Bolsheviks were happy to channel it. It was given a great deal of state support in 1918 after Lenin was nearly assassinated, but Lenin didn’t redouble it simply out of fear from his life, but because it had been in the fabric of the Bolshevik regime (and their motivations) since before the revolution. Lenins guilt is clear if once denied. The intrinsic nature of repression in his extreme version of socialism clear. The French Revolution as Inspiration If youve read about the French Revolution, the idea of an extreme group introducing a government that ran through terror might seem familiar. The people caught up in Russia in 1917 actively looked to the French Revolution for inspiration - the Bolsheviks thought of themselves as Jacobins - and the Red Terror is a direct relation to The Terror of Robespierre et al.