Jadync4’s Comments (group member since Jan 06, 2016)

Jadync4’s comments from the Ms. A's Advanced English Book Discussions group.

Nichole wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "So the question remains, do you think Lion King can be considered an adaptation of Hamlet? Using your notes, use 5 specific examples (only two can be characters) on why you believe ..."

I agree with Nicole. There are way too many similarities to be considered not an adaption. There are only a few small differences, but other than that, they both have the same moral.

Cassidy wrote: "So the question remains, do you think Lion King can be considered an adaptation of Hamlet? Using your notes, use 5 specific examples (only two can be characters) on why you believe Lion King is, or..."
I do believe that the Lion King can be considered and adaptation of Hamlet. Hamlet talked to his father as a ghost and from there took revenge for his death towards the new king and his step dad, Claudius. Simba was under the impression that he was at fault for his fathers death because Scar made him believe that so he would be the new king. After Simba communicated with his ghost of a father, he learned the truth and from there took revenge on Scar. Also, the adaptation was the same, a kingdom. They both involved the place of a kingdom. The both also involved the characters turning into Kings and fighting for their deserved spot of a King. Another thing is they both involved the ghost of the son's fathers.
Simba and Hamlet were both sent away from their Kingdom, and both later on came back for revenge. There are many similarities to not think it isn't an adaptation. There are only few differences between the two stories.

BradR5595 wrote: "I thought I did good from where I started earlier in the week. I had to stop and think once but you have to assume that will happen. I felt I did good on keeping a good pace and not having to stop ..."

Hunter wrote: "I think that when I performed it in front of the class it was probably my best time saying it. I didn't mess up on things that I have previously messed up on. I think one thing that I did well on w..."

I agree with Brad. The hardest part was going up in front of the whole class. You get up there and you feel like you lost all of it because everyone was just staring at you. That was challenging, but we all still managed to do very well despite the challenges.

Cassidy wrote: "How do you think you did? What is one thing you did well on. Explain why that was. What was a challenge for you in this assignment? Why? Do you think it would be difficult for people in Shakespeare..."

I think my performance was pretty good. For as much as I stressed out about it, I think all the memorizing and stressing was worth it when I got up there and knew every line. I think I did well on saying the lines and memorizing them correctly. Memorizing the lines were not challenging, but getting up in front of the whole class was not easy. It was hard because you get up there and you feel like you lost it all because everyone is just staring at you.

I don't think people in Shakespeare time had a tough time like I did. I feel like they were use to talking in this way and they could have memorized it easier because they were use to it in the beginning. People performing Shakespeare in today's time might have a little bit of trouble like our class did performing it. Doing this assignment doesn't make me think any differently about the play. It kind of helped me understand it more in a way.

Cassidy wrote: "Which version of the soliloquy best represents the meaning and tone of the soliloquy and the message Hamlet was trying to get across? Why?"
I think the best representation of the soliloquy meaning and the message Hamlet was trying to get across was Mel Gibson's also. When I envisioned the speech, I thought the surroundings would be very dark and mischievous. I expected the speech to be dramatic and into depth. And the Mel Gibson version fit all of those. The other two versions were just not as dramatic and they did not seem too into the speech as the 1990 one.

Bridgeth wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"

I do not believe that William Shakespeare wrote all the works in whic..."

I agree with Bridget. If he was a writer like he is acknowledge as, he should have at least been able to do his signature the correct way.

Aric wrote: "I don't think Shakespeare really wore his plays. I think that he was a real person, but I think William Shakespeare is a pseudonym for somebody else. The education that the real William Shakespeare..."

Aric has a good point when he says that Shakespeare is a pseudonym for someone else. He is getting credit for things he didn't even do.

BradR5595 wrote: "Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"
I don't think that Shakespeare did write the plays. I think that he wa..."

I agree with Brad, because some of his works consist of places he has never been to, such as the sea. How could he write something about that if he has never been there and experienced it?

Cassidy wrote: "Did William Shakespeare really write the works he is attributed to? What is your opinion? Why does it matter?"

I do not believe William Shakespeare really wrote all of the plays. I do believe he was a real person, but I find it impossible for him to have written all those plays it says he did. I think he is getting credit for someone else's work. This is not fair in my opinion because Shakespeare's name is well known and all this 'his' works, but if he didn't actually write all of these plays, then he is getting all this fame for nothing and instead it should be going to someone else who actually contributed in these plays.