Greek versus Roman

In history today I studied the Renaissance. The Renaissance was the rebirth of classical things from the civilizations of the Greeks and Romans. And since I've been reading Percy Jackson again, one of the better things about the 21st century, I thought I would point out some facts about the gods.

For example, most of the planets are named after Roman gods. I have no idea why. But some of them aren't named after major gods, which I found sort of peculiar.

Mercury- Hermes
Venus- Aphrodite
Earth-Well, that ones a little confusing. It's technically named after Gaea/Gaia. But her Roman form was Terra, but they named the planet Earth, not Terra.
Mars- Ares
Jupiter- Zeus
Saturn- Kronos, I think. And all of it's moons are named after various gods and titans.
Uranus- Uranus, who was the ancient god of the sky and apparently Zeus's grandfather.
Neptune- Poseidon
Pluto- Hades

The other gods are named other things, except for one special guy. Apollo! His name is exactly the same in both the Greek and Roman societies. Maybe it's because he's so cool. I don't know. Anyways, he's my favorite god, personally, because he's god of the sun! Who doesn't like the sun? He also is god of archery and bachelors. I actually made a bracelet about him. In the colors of the sun. I also made one for Poseidon (in green and blue) and Aphrodite (all pink!)

Oh, that reminds me of one other thing. This summer I went to Busch Gardens in Virginia! (Theme parks are my favorite places! I wish they steel roller-coasters before the 21st century. Then I'd write an article about the best roller-coasters ever!) Anyways, it was awesome. And the best ride there was Apollo's chariot. It didn't go upside down or anything, but it had these awesome hills where, when you'd get to the top, you'd go weightless for a moment!! I could have gone on that all day!!! But what puzzled me was that it was in little Italy. I'm no geography whiz, but Greece and Italy are not in the same place. And Apollo originated from Greek. So that annoyed me a little. But it's still the best ride!

ALW

Andrew Lloyd Webber is one of the great things about the 21st century. Two of the most famous musicals in the world, CATS and the Phantom of the Opera, were composed by him. However, he composed these more than 25 years ago, therefore it counts as part of the 1900s and something that I respect.

He originally composed the leads of these pieces for his wife, Sarah Brightman. She is the original Christine, and, if I remember correctly, the original Grisabella. He wrote 13 musicals in total. And got tons of awards for them. So far, he has:

• Seven Tony Awards
• Three Grammy Awards
• One Academy Award
• Fourteen Ivor Novello Awards
• Seven Oliver Awards
• One Golden Globe Award
• and the Kennedy Center Honors 2006.

See why he is incredibly awesome? AND he's British.

Les Miserables movies are not up to standards

Seeing as this summer I have been making my way through The Brick, I thought I might as well watch the movie versions of Les Miserables. I don't know the exact dates, but they are old ones, from 19 something or other. I watched 3 or 4 versions of the book this summer, and I think I should express how much I did not enjoy them.

The beginning started off well though, I have to admit, and if the whole movie was that in detail and sync with the book, it would have been marvelous. Unlike the book, the movie started off with Valjean's trial. Although I believe this was only implied in the book, it was a very good way to start off the movie to help the viewers understand Valjean's background.

The movie then shows in detail the conversation when Valjean goes on parole, the conversation being almost identical when the old woman asks Valjean if he had gone to the bishop yet:
"Did you knock on every door?"
"Yes."
"Knock on that one."
This simple conversation blew me away since it was exactly like the book, it impressed me and I had myself hoping the entire movie would be like that. What especially impressed me was that although the musical is much better than the movies, the movie went further in depth than the musical.

It was also interesting to see the director's takes on the bishop's house, and I was quite happy that they included the bishop's wife and sister.

The movie is quite good up until when Fantine is ill. Some of the movies even include Fantine getting snow shoved down her dress, so kudos to them. However, in the book, Valjean has fire-pacing choices and he does not go get Cosette until after Fantine dies. One of the movies did this, but the other three had Valjean travel to the Thenardier's in to get Cosette and she is re-united with her mother before she dies. As depressing as it is, I much prefer Javert walking in and shocking Fantine to death.

After that, the movies go into complete chaos. I must make a list of ALL the things wrong with the movies after that point.

1. Eponine is not rich. She is not rich, not an assistant to Marius, and she is not involved with Les Amis! In other movies, she's not even there, and there is no love triangle, which makes the movie incredibly more boring.
2. Marius is not the leader of Les Amis. They completely rid the story of Enjolras, and had Cosette see Marius giving a speech in the middle of a square. And another thing about Marius:
3. He is a wimp. He does not give speeches and only barely makes it back to the barricade in time after despairing for a while! He also does not try to come up to Valjean and give him a pamphlet swaying him to the cause, since Valjean despises him for ogling over Cosette. 
4. Also, Marius is not rich. He lives in the slum and occasionally borrows money from Courfeyrac. He can't afford what he does in the movie.
5. There is no Gavroche. That's something I didn't like about the musical too. Gavroche is supposed to deliver Marius's letter, Eponine is already supposed to be dead! 
6. And, in one of the movies, Gavroche is actually friends with Cosette. She's apparently giving out food and recognizes him so often.
7. They got rid of Enjolras! Did I mention that already? Sure, let's take out the most valiant character, without which there would hardly be any revolution!! Still, they managed to.

I think they should mention the students more in the movie. I don't feel they do it enough in the musical, either. I mean, it's important to learn about Valjean's life and such, but you have to admit, while reading the book, it brightens up so much as soon as the students and Gavroche are introduced.

Lastly, I think I should just commend them on Javert's suicide. It was done well in a few of the movies, and the hat floating on the water was a nice touch.

Over all...I would give them a 3/10.

There is a new Les Miserables movie coming out in December. I'm not sure if it is based on the musical or book, but I do know they have Samantha Barks as Eponine. And they didn't choose Ramin Karimloo as Enjolras. So godspeed to them. I hope it will at least be better than the previous movies.

19th Century Writers

Is it just me, or are the authors from the 19th century some of the best? I don't think it's just me.

I recently read "The Phantom of the Opera" by Gaston Leroux. I just have one piece of advice: READ THIS BOOK. Good god! It was stunning! Although I do have to admit I'd prefer the musical, due to the confusion and daftness of certain characters in the book, it is highly recommended on my list. I shall indeed submit a review of this book in due time, but I loved the romance between Raoul and Christine, it seemed so much more real in the book due to Raoul's brother.

My favorite author of ALL TIME is Victor Hugo. I am slowly making my way through "The Brick" as the Les Miserables fans call it. Many people would tell you to read the book first. I disagree. I think you should see the musical first. The musical is amazing. You'll be blown away. Then, read the book, and it seems even more spectacular! Do it the other way around, and I believe you'll find that the book seems to long and rambling, and that the musical doesn't do it justice.

Now, don't get me started on 16th century authors...