Compare one of the books we read in class with a movie (cartoon or live action) adaptation.
You can choose between Peter Pan, The Wizard of Oz, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. For each of the books there are a number of adaptations. For instance, you have the 1953 Disney version of Peter Pan, the 1939 version of The Wizard of Oz, and the 2005 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, as well as a 1971 version called Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory. You can use these or any other adaptations, just make sure that you indicate in your assignment which one you are talking about.
You can focus on any aspect of the story you like – how is the plot changed in the adaptation compared with the original, how have the characters changed, what is the role of visual elements in the movie compared to the book, is the movie more or less serious/demanding than the book or is the opposite true, etc?
Sample Solution
In light of an intensive audit of academic and well known articles, it is generally proposed that the U.S. military’s strategies are firmly managed by sex double. Specialists from UCLA found that transgender Americans are twice as liable to serve in the military as the general populace, in any case, prejudicial practices inside the administration abuse transgender military individuals (Gates and Herman, 2014). Consequently, the criticalness of this approach brief is that it will exhibit the essential ideas and data that are important to transgender fighters in the military. In particular, this strategy brief will display the accompanying segments: Background/Context, Defining the Issue, Perspectives and Viewpoints on the Issue, Current/Proposed Solutions. Foundation/Context The foundation and setting of this issue is of incredible importance to the approach brief. This examination shows that until 2016, transgender assistance individuals were required to conceal their sex personality so as to serve (Feder, 2013). In July of 2017, President Donald Trump prohibited transgender individuals from serving in the military because of “medicinal expenses and interruption” expedited by transgender assistance individuals. The boycott was blocked and considered illegal by a government judge (Philipps, 2017). Further, a study led by the Rand Corporation inferred that there is little cost to permit transgender officers in the military and no negative effect on operational availability or viability (Schaefer, et al., 2016). Generally, it is obvious that there is no solid contention against enabling transgender individuals to serve. Characterizing the Issue Sources have characterized this issue in an assortment of ways. For instance, look into recommends that people that distinguish as transgender fight segregation and stereotyping in regular citizen society, yet military also (Grant et al., 2011). Besides, another source expresses that, whenever discovered, transgenders in the administration “need to persevere through the embarrassment of a military release alongside potential loss of advantages. Other physically fit transgender volunteers are being dismissed before having the chance to enroll in any part of the military” (Ross, 2013) Points of view and Viewpoints on the Issue This specific approach issue recommends that not every person has a similar perspective or point of view. For example, Mendez (2014) shows that “[b]eing a resident and being generally able to serve implied little even with preference and the overarching numbness of the occasions. The troublesome exercises of the country’s past show unmistakably why exclusionary arrangements negate the most-venerated and perceived announcement of American government, that all people ought to be treated as basically equivalent”. Interestingly, different sources express that those that are transgender “face issues of character and body that can hinder them as officers. The military isn’t simply the correct condition for this sort of self-revelation” (Bonte-Friedheim, 2017). Given that there is no information to reinforcement the last explanation, the legitimization for enabling transgenders to serve is a lot more grounded. Current Proposed Solutions In spite of the fact that there are no distinct proposed arrangements, Schaefer et al. (2016) offered the accompanying suggestions, in light of their exploration, for enabling transgenders to serve straightforwardly: “Promotion strategies. DoD should audit and reconsider the language in promotion guidelines to coordinate the DSM-5 for conditions identified with mental wellness. Physical wellness benchmarks ought to determine physical necessities (instead of physical conditions) and ought to explain when the administration part’s objective sexual orientation prerequisites will start to apply. Maintenance strategies. DoD ought to explain maintenance measures during and after medicinal progress. For instance, approaches should detail whether and when work force may should be held briefly absolved from physical wellness testing and prerequisites during sexual orientation progress. Partition strategies. DoD might need to overhaul the present partition process dependent on exercises gained from the annulment of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. At the point when release choices happen outside the standard restorative and physical audit process, this cutoff points documentation and open doors for survey. DoD ought to likewise create and scatter clear criteria for evaluating whether and how transgender-related conditions may meddle with obligation execution. Sending arrangements. DoD should audit and potentially modify its sending confinements in accordance with medicinal and innovative advances, including insignificantly obtrusive medications and telemedicine. Such changes could limit the availability effect of therapeutic techniques that are normal among transgender work force.” End Taking everything into account, the contention for restricting transgender people groups from serving in the military is ill-conceived. It is pivotal that human rights secure all people, regardless of race, sex character, religion, sexual direction, or incapacity. Taking into account that a recent report evaluated that around 15,500 transgender individuals right now serve in the military, it is silly to banish these people from serving their nation (Gates and Herman, 2014).>
In light of an intensive audit of academic and well known articles, it is generally proposed that the U.S. military’s strategies are firmly managed by sex double. Specialists from UCLA found that transgender Americans are twice as liable to serve in the military as the general populace, in any case, prejudicial practices inside the administration abuse transgender military individuals (Gates and Herman, 2014). Consequently, the criticalness of this approach brief is that it will exhibit the essential ideas and data that are important to transgender fighters in the military. In particular, this strategy brief will display the accompanying segments: Background/Context, Defining the Issue, Perspectives and Viewpoints on the Issue, Current/Proposed Solutions. Foundation/Context The foundation and setting of this issue is of incredible importance to the approach brief. This examination shows that until 2016, transgender assistance individuals were required to conceal their sex personality so as to serve (Feder, 2013). In July of 2017, President Donald Trump prohibited transgender individuals from serving in the military because of “medicinal expenses and interruption” expedited by transgender assistance individuals. The boycott was blocked and considered illegal by a government judge (Philipps, 2017). Further, a study led by the Rand Corporation inferred that there is little cost to permit transgender officers in the military and no negative effect on operational availability or viability (Schaefer, et al., 2016). Generally, it is obvious that there is no solid contention against enabling transgender individuals to serve. Characterizing the Issue Sources have characterized this issue in an assortment of ways. For instance, look into recommends that people that distinguish as transgender fight segregation and stereotyping in regular citizen society, yet military also (Grant et al., 2011). Besides, another source expresses that, whenever discovered, transgenders in the administration “need to persevere through the embarrassment of a military release alongside potential loss of advantages. Other physically fit transgender volunteers are being dismissed before having the chance to enroll in any part of the military” (Ross, 2013) Points of view and Viewpoints on the Issue This specific approach issue recommends that not every person has a similar perspective or point of view. For example, Mendez (2014) shows that “[b]eing a resident and being generally able to serve implied little even with preference and the overarching numbness of the occasions. The troublesome exercises of the country’s past show unmistakably why exclusionary arrangements negate the most-venerated and perceived announcement of American government, that all people ought to be treated as basically equivalent”. Interestingly, different sources express that those that are transgender “face issues of character and body that can hinder them as officers. The military isn’t simply the correct condition for this sort of self-revelation” (Bonte-Friedheim, 2017). Given that there is no information to reinforcement the last explanation, the legitimization for enabling transgenders to serve is a lot more grounded. Current Proposed Solutions In spite of the fact that there are no distinct proposed arrangements, Schaefer et al. (2016) offered the accompanying suggestions, in light of their exploration, for enabling transgenders to serve straightforwardly: “Promotion strategies. DoD should audit and reconsider the language in promotion guidelines to coordinate the DSM-5 for conditions identified with mental wellness. Physical wellness benchmarks ought to determine physical necessities (instead of physical conditions) and ought to explain when the administration part’s objective sexual orientation prerequisites will start to apply. Maintenance strategies. DoD ought to explain maintenance measures during and after medicinal progress. For instance, approaches should detail whether and when work force may should be held briefly absolved from physical wellness testing and prerequisites during sexual orientation progress. Partition strategies. DoD might need to overhaul the present partition process dependent on exercises gained from the annulment of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. At the point when release choices happen outside the standard restorative and physical audit process, this cutoff points documentation and open doors for survey. DoD ought to likewise create and scatter clear criteria for evaluating whether and how transgender-related conditions may meddle with obligation execution. Sending arrangements. DoD should audit and potentially modify its sending confinements in accordance with medicinal and innovative advances, including insignificantly obtrusive medications and telemedicine. Such changes could limit the availability effect of therapeutic techniques that are normal among transgender work force.” End Taking everything into account, the contention for restricting transgender people groups from serving in the military is ill-conceived. It is pivotal that human rights secure all people, regardless of race, sex character, religion, sexual direction, or incapacity. Taking into account that a recent report evaluated that around 15,500 transgender individuals right now serve in the military, it is silly to banish these people from serving their nation (Gates and Herman, 2014).>
