The idea of Hollywood alarms messages of excitement, fame and actors exploding onto the scene of the glamorous stage set sounds brilliant. Imagine the actors on the red carpet and the excitement already starts to build. It is so hard to separate the glamour from the reality. The many scenes and types of movies are so interesting: action, adventure, horror; love/romance and political type are all available but within limits. To those who have thousands of DVDs it is not that difficult to be able to watch these every day and many times over and over again. A simple change of the DVD in the video recorder would make it possible to do this. However, those that don’t have this equipment may find its not possible.

Now, there is a simple solution to this problem with the unlimited downloads of all types of movies. This is a fantastic solution to an otherwise complex problem due to the cost and the time of the downloads. The amount of space these movies would take up on the computer would make it quite expensive and time consuming to make any movie accessible. There are limits on our time and money to obtain these things.

Secondly, in relation to movies, there normally are extra costs to download more movies each week or month and these would all add up over time. This would normally result in extra membership fees and extra costs for each movie. Imagine watching a western movie, after an action one and in the comfort of your own home with no extra fees.

Let your imagination run wild!!. The ultimate thrill of the chase in a western with cowboys, followed by the drama and action of a box office movie with Mel Gibson, or the magic of Remington Steel sounds so unreal. This can be before a hilarious comedy or wonderful romance movie at any time of the day or night. It sounds so enticing and interesting. It can really be possible at any time of the day or night.

In summary, the sophisticated world of technology has made everything simpler even for the novice in computers or those people that don’t have the skills to complete these activations successfully. There are continually new technologies emerging that are making it possible to achieve more than before but with the convenience of a simpler method of achieving this. This is truly amazing that this can be achieved in the 21stcentury in a world changing by the minute.

What is film adaptation? It’s the process of translating a written text – novel, short story, play, or even comic book – into the visual medium of film. It’s a process that has become financially vital to cinema during the film industry’s evolution. Hollywood relies so heavily on adaptation is because there is a ready-made story and structure to work from, plus – assuming the source text is popular – an established fan-base, which means a built-in audience. However, when considering this fan-base the most pressing issue is that of the fidelity approach; in other words, how faithful will the adaptation be to the source text? This is certainly a bone of contention for the fans anticipating the movie-version of their favourite story, who believe or hope that the film will be an accurate translation of the book they know and love. Often, the results are controversial because the fidelity approach holds an illogical position of supremacy in adaptation theory; most film adaptations are viewed as inferior to their literary equivalents as assessed by the conventions of fidelity. The following exposes the fidelity approach as outmoded, impractical, and, at worst, even irrelevant.

The ‘reading’ – or the interpretation – of a text is a tenuously personal process. One reader’s views will always differ from another’s, throwing the fidelity approach into doubt right away. What exactly is being suggested with the word ‘fidelity’? A literal translation of a text could refer to the print and the film following the same narrative path, or maybe a replication of the theme. This is where fidelity becomes a rather vague concept. A film, adapted from, say, a novel can use the same narrative techniques, or follow the same structure, as the source, and yet convey an entirely different theme. Conversely, a film could duplicate the theme of a text while presenting the story in an entirely new manner. Which adaptation is the most faithful? Brian McFarlane states that: “The critic who quibbles at failures of fidelity is really saying no more than: “This reading of the original does not tall with mine in these and these ways.” (McFarlane, 1996, p9).

“Hollywood is gonna kill me by remote control.”

(Philip K. Dick, on reading the first draft of Blade Runner in 1980, in Kerman, 1997, p91)

After unsuccessful attempts at becoming a mainstream novelist, Philip K Dick turned maverick pulp science fiction writer, changing both sci-fi and film adaptation indelibly. Dick dealt with concepts of human existence and morality though LSD-distorted eyes, and most of his works centre on the false dichotomy of co-dependency-versus-conflict between man and machine. As his work became more popular, and so started to cross the desks of idea-hungry film executives, his oeuvre was soon labelled ‘unfilmable’. His works include Ubis (1966), A Scanner Darkly (1977) – the subject of an unseen ‘spec’ script by Being John Malkovich (1999) scribe Charlie Kaufman, and later adapted by auteur Richard Linklater in 2006 as a rotoscope feature, starring Keanu Reeves – and, most famously, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? (1968), which was the basis for Ridley Scott’s 1982 classic, Blade Runner, starring Harrison Ford.

After only partially reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Scott rejected it as being, “a brilliant piece which in book form would never make a film” (in Greenberger, 1982, p61). Ironically, the film that Scott was slated to direct at that time was an adaptation of James Herbert’s lengthy tome, Dune (1965), a book that was for years branded ‘unfilmable’, even (or especially?) after David Lynch’s 1984 adaptation. However, after reading a treatment and first draft of the screenplay for the renamed Blade Runner, Scott signed on to direct.

“[It is like] Phillip Marlowe meets The Stepford Wives.”

(Philip K. Dick, in Bukatman, 1997, p20)

Supported by the above quote, an abundance of anecdotal evidence that suggests that Dick hated what Scott and screenwriter Hampton Fancher had done with later drafts of the script. However, the following quote – regarding a rewrite by David Peoples – seems to say otherwise:

“After I finished reading the screenplay, I got the novel out and looked through it. The two reinforce each other, so that someone who started with the novel would enjoy the movie and someone who started with the movie would enjoy the novel. I was amazed that Peoples could get some of the scenes to work. It taught me things about writing I didn’t know.”

(Philip K. Dick, in Kerman, 1997, p92)

Dick’s assessment implies that the differences between the original text and the screenplay actually strengthen both the adaptation and the source text; that the creation of the latter allows the two mediums combine in some kind of intertextual coherence. One enhances the existence of the other.

Both the novel and the film have the following outline in common: a police officer named Rick Deckard is assigned to hunt and kill a group of escaped androids in future Los Angeles. Yet, the film is not considered to be faithful to the original Dick novel. Science fiction, more than any other genre, is renowned for its devout retinues, or cults. These fanatic collectives dogmatically champion the fidelity approach, and are the most vocal at any sign of divergence from their exemplar; take liberties with the adaptation and prepare for the outcry. With Blade Runner, this outcry was further exasperated by press reports of clashes between Dick and Scott over early drafts of the script and was not aided by Dick’s death a matter of months before the film’s release date.

The movie was, inevitably, slaughtered by most critics, with the major criticism being that it was not an accurate replication of the book.

“The filmmaker’s most important failure lies… in what they… left out from the book or pointlessly downplayed.”

(Kenneth Jurkiewicz, in Sammon, 1982, p24)

When the finished film was submitted to the producer, Michael Deeley – late and over-budget – he hated it, claiming that audiences would find it ‘too cerebral’, despite the more challenging elements of the book already being removed, and insisted that changes were made. He ordered that the ending – which inferred that Deckard himself was a replicant – be replaced with a less-ambiguous, ‘happier’ resolution, which was constructed using stock footage left over from Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980) (another adaptation, this time from the Stephen King story of the same name). He also requested a Phillip Marlowe-esque interior monologue (voiceover) be added in order to both explain the film to the audience and to soften Deckard’s brooding character, despite vociferous protests from both Scott and Harrison Ford, who played Deckard. Apocryphally, so displeased was he at having been forced to record the voiceover, Ford delivered his line reads poorly on purpose in the hope that they wouldn’t be used.

The film flopped on its cinema release, but later achieved cult status on video. This success justified the release of Scott’s original vision for the film – Blade Runner: Director’s Cut – in 1991, which restored the ending and discarded the interior monologue. This is universally-regarded as the most complete and successful incarnation of the film, and yet this version veers further away from the book than the 1982 cinema release. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? it is made clear at the conclusion that Deckard is thoroughly human; Blade Runner: Director’s Cut leads the audience to strongly suspect that he is a replicant. The book and the film even carry different themes: that it is difficult to draw a line between ‘real’ and artificial life. In Blade Runner, Rick Deckard – our hero – falls in love with a replicant, then discovers he might be one himself; in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, Deckard and his wife fail to recognise the injustice that artificial animals (pets) are valued above artificial humanoids (slaves).

According to Geoffrey Wagner (1975, p223) there are three categories of adaptation: Transposition, “in which a novel is given directly on the screen with minimum of apparent interference”; Commentary, “where an original is taken and either purposefully or inadvertently altered in some respect… where there has been a different intention on the part of the filmmaker, rather than infidelity or outright violation”; and Analogy,“which must represent a fairly considerable departure for the sake of making another work of art”. But, can Transposition be used as a synonym for fidelity? Note the phrase, “minimum amount of interference”. Wagner acknowledges that a text cannot be transferred to the screen without some degree of manipulation.

So, what degree of manipulation makes for an infidelity? Is that to be decided critically? If yes, then there are no rules; there is no binary function to determine fidelity or infidelity. So, is each assessment valid in its own right; can an adaptation hold the superposition of being both faithful and unfaithful at the same time? Critique is subjective, whereas fidelity is rigid; the two are mutually exclusive. This permeates filmmaking: take the hypothetical example of ten film directors tasked with adapting the same text adhering to the fidelity approach. How would the personal biases of each director and practical limitations of filmmaking influence the finished product? Does intent denote fidelity? How many of these films would tally with another person’s interpretation of the source material, and in what way would they differ? For all ten directors – without conference – to present some kind of uniform translation of the base text would not only be at odds with the expressionism of filmmaking, it would be inhuman.

Texts and films are different mediums and need to be treated accordingly. All films are produced from a ‘source text’ – adaptation or not – in the form of a script. The process demands a level of interpretation – by both director and actors alike – from script to screen, whether that is enforced by budget, practicality, dramatic integrity, or personal bias, in order to translate between the two mediums. So, in a sense, fidelity can never exist. Whenever there is a text to film transition, by the very nature of the visual medium, there is adaptation, and whereas fidelity means to stay faithful to the source text, to adapt means change to fit. Therefore, the association between adaptation and fidelity is a contradiction in terms. Without change there can be no adaptation.

References

Kerman, J. (1997) Retrofitting Blade Runner, Bowling Green: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 2nd Edition

Bukatman, S. (1997) Blade Runner, London: BFI

Sammon, P. (1982) The Making of Blade Runner, Cinefantastique 12 (Jul-Aug 1982), pp20-47

Greenberger, R. (1982) Ridley Scott, Starlog (July 1982), pp60-64

McFarlane, B (1996) Novel to Film: An Introduction to the Theory of Adaptation, Oxford: Clarendon Press

Wagner, Geoffrey (1975), The Novel and the Cinema, New Jersey: Associated University Presses Inc.

UKASH is operated and owned by Smart Voucher Limited. The company is regulated by the United Kingdom Financial Services Authority, since they happen to be the UK EMI or Electronic Money Institution. It was introduced in order to facilitate the creation, redemption and the purchase of vouchers in-store as well as on the internet. Smart Voucher employs the service for Energis. This e-commerce service functions in the dual host environment to ensure reliability.

The system is live since July 2003 and around 150 casinos allow the players to deposit money through Ukash. Ukash is for everyone since it allows all the players to use their money on the internet without worrying about security measures. The clients do not have to reveal any of their private information and it doesn’t require the clients to have a bank card as well. UK is now available in Spain, Germany, UK and Ireland. However, Ukash would soon be launched in other countries like Belgium, France and Netherlands. Ukash is known for expanding its service areas.

Ukash is very easy to buy and use. The customers are required to buy the Ukash vouchers from the recognised retailers and it has more than 3000 outlets across United Kingdom. In order to know more about the service areas, the users can go the Ukash website and enter the postal code. It is by far the best method to find the nearest retailer. The voucher comprises of the 19 digit number. This number is used like a card number. The customers are lured by Ukash since the registration process is simple and only takes a few minutes to get started. If the users are dealing online, they are not required to register or undergo complicated set-ups.

The consumers need to go to the nearest retailer and hand in the cash in return for the voucher. There are vouchers from GBP5 to GBP100 and these vouchers could then be used in the online casinos. This is how Ukash allows financial transactions without the use of debit or credit cards deposits. Online casinos in and all around United Kingdom have employed Ukash as a payment method. It is highly preferred by the gamblers who do not wish to give off their personal information. Ukash is safe and secured and keeps the user identity hidden.

The service also has some of the promotional services for the customers. The Ukash payment method could be used in all those sites that contain a Ukash logo. In order to use Ukash in the online casinos, the players need to go to the cashier section and can choose Ukash as the deposit method. The players can then enter the 19 digit codes and the funds are instantly credited into the player account. Also, there are no transaction fees attached to Ukash vouchers and these vouchers could be used for six months within the date of purchase. There are quite a lot of casinos who offer some bonuses if the player’s account is funded through Ukash.

Rings for body piercing can be made of different materials. Traditionally they have been produced from pure gold, sterling silver, platinum, stainless steel, anodized titanium or other precious metals and their alloys. Such rings are often encrusted with precious stones or gems. But high-qualitative body piercing jewelry made from solid gold, for example, is rather expensive, so, young people often just can not afford such belly button rings. For this reason many designers and jewelers started to use cheaper materials for belly button rings manufacturing. Such body piercing jewelry, of course, has a lower cost price, so, nearly everyone can easily buy it. But still there are several facts you should be aware of, buying belly button rings of this sort.

Cheap belly button rings are never made of solid gold. As a rule, they contain different pigments and chemical components, which can influence your health. Chemical materials often cause allergic reactions. This leads to itch and burning of skin, sometimes the body temperature can raise. That’s why, if you feel not very well after you have placed such a ring into your navel, you’d better take it off.

One more disadvantage of cheap belly button rings is their poor durability. In most cases they break rather soon. Moreover, they lose their attractiveness very quickly. After some months of wearing such ring will become dull and faded, while the rings made of solid gold will serve you for many years without loss of quality.

Besides, those parts of body, which are usually pierced, for example, tongue, lips, navel, nipple, eyebrow are rather sensitive. Cheap materials don’t protect our body from infection so good as pure gold does.

Have I lived a past life? Is this life just a continuation of my karma from one lifetime to the next, or is that just a bunch of silly new age nonsense? What are the very BEST ways to prove past lives are real? Do I need to do a whole bunch of weird research, or stir up some strange memories that are going to mess up my life, or do anything that’s going to make me feel uncomfortable at all? Any of these questions sound familiar? In this article we are going to take a quick and easy look at the idea of past lives, and answer some common questions about the best way to discover your own to boot! Curious to know more? Continue reading as we take a closer look below!

Does everyone live many times, or just a select few?

Good question, and one that is asked pretty often as well. My own belief? Each of us has ONE soul… but many bodies to carry it through many lifetimes. I believe at heart, each of us is an eternal spiritual being having a very temporary physical experience, and at death, we are “freed” by the constraints of the body and return to some sort of parallel plane of energetic existence.

Is there any PROOF of this… or is this just a bunch of personal opinion, and new age nuttiness?

The truth is, there is TONS of scientific evidence for past lives. Children who recall vivid memories of other cultures, continents, and even centuries of time is a perfect example, and something that has been studied scientifically as a result. (even making it as a featured story in the New England Journal of Medicine, the most prestigious medical magazine in the world)

By the way… did you know that the University of Virginia, one of the most academically respected Universities in the US, has a division set up to study past life memories in children? Unusual, but TRUE! (and there are over 20,000 cases that have been compiled that are thought to be VERY strong as well)

Other more well-known evidence that supports the idea of past lives?

Deja Vu is very common, and many people report feeling it at least once or twice in our lives.

Past life recall in dreams.

Hypnosis and regression therapy have become VERY persuasive when it comes to past life recall, including having an amazing therapeutic value as well. (The book Many Lives, Many Masters by Harvard trained Psychiatrist, Dr. Brian Weiss, is a perfect example of this in action)

Of course personal astrology readings, horoscopes, psychic karma readings and that sort of experience are the MOST common way that average people are able to get access to information that seems to suggest that our spirits “come back” through many lifetimes.

There are even many meditative and visualization exercises that can give you first hand access to powerful past life memories, without even getting off your sofa. I’ve personally used guided imagery and past life “talk therapy on tape” to safely explore my own past lives from the comfort and safety of home…and for me, this has been a great experience as well.

The bottom line?

Like any other experience that you can only “prove” by having it yourself, the ONLY real way to understand that past lives are real on a personal level is to dive in and try one of the techniques outlined above (or find something you like better). The good news is, if you seek out past life answers, in my experience….there are out there to find!