Lion King vs Hamlet Essay -- essays papers

Lion King vs Hamlet The movie, The Lion King, and the book, Hamlet, both have a similar story line. In both stories, the king is killed and revenge is sought by the king’s son. The murderers in the stories are the king’s brothers who want the power of the throne. After the death of the Kings, both of the villains successfully took over the kingdoms. While these villains ruled, the kingdoms slowly deteriorated. Neither of the sons liked the villains, but they did not know at first that they had anything to do with their father’s death. It took an outside force to convince them that they must vow revenge for their father’s death. Both sons had the wit to approach revenge strategically. They wanted the villains to know that they knew about how their fathers were murdered. The leading roles in each of the stories had a corresponding role in the other. The corresponding characters shared a number of similarities, but it was the ways in which they were different that determined their fate and that of the kingdom. In Hamlet, the prince is Hamlet. He is in deep grieving of his father’s death. He is angry because he believes that everyone has already forgotten how great of a king his father was. Hamlet does not know for sure who is responsible for his father’s death, but he suspects Claudius who is his uncle and the new king. Hamlet decides that if he can convince everyone that he is insane, then maybe he will be able to get someone to tell him more about his father’s murder. In The Lion King, Simba is the prince. Simba’s father, Mufasa, is killed after he falls from a cliff into a herd of hyenas. Simba falls into a deep depression after his uncle Scar twists things around and convinces Simba that he is the one responsible for th e Mufasa’s death. Simba can not deal with what has happened and he runs away from the kingdom. In Hamlet, The new king Claudius is able to gain respect from the kingdom. He even steals the love of Hamlet’s mother Gertrude. The old king’s councilor, Polonius, becomes Claudius’s councilor and his best friend. He helps Claudius keep an eye on Hamlet and tries to keep him from finding out anything about his father’s death. Polonius believes that if he helps Claudius that he can make life better for himself and for his daughter and son. But in the end, his actions get him slayed, drive his daughter to insanity, and eventually set... ...f her son. She starts to feel the poison and she warns Hamlet of it before she dies. It is too late though, the poisonous sword had cut Hamlet. In anger, Hamlet steals the poisoned sword and runs it into Laertes. He then charges Claudius and runs it into him. He also takes the wine and forces Claudius to drink from it. Both Claudius and Laertes die before Hamlet. Hamlet regains his throne for a few seconds, until the poison sets in and takes his life. The Lion King has a happy ending. Simba returns to his kingdom and he finds Scar. He tells Scar that he knows about his father’s death. Scar lies to Simba by telling him that the Hyenas were the ones who killed Mufasa. This upsets the Hyenas. They leave Scar to fight Simba by himself. Simba wins the fight and throws Scar off a cliff, into the herd of the Hyenas. The hyenas show no remorse for Scar and they trample over him, killing him. Once Simba takes back the throne, the whole kingdom becomes beautiful again and everyone i s happy. The two stories had similar plots and characters. But in the end, the small differences in how the characters acted separated the tragedy of Hamlet from the happy ending of Disney’s The Lion King. Lion King vs Hamlet Essay -- essays papers Lion King vs Hamlet The movie, The Lion King, and the book, Hamlet, both have a similar story line. In both stories, the king is killed and revenge is sought by the king’s son. The murderers in the stories are the king’s brothers who want the power of the throne. After the death of the Kings, both of the villains successfully took over the kingdoms. While these villains ruled, the kingdoms slowly deteriorated. Neither of the sons liked the villains, but they did not know at first that they had anything to do with their father’s death. It took an outside force to convince them that they must vow revenge for their father’s death. Both sons had the wit to approach revenge strategically. They wanted the villains to know that they knew about how their fathers were murdered. The leading roles in each of the stories had a corresponding role in the other. The corresponding characters shared a number of similarities, but it was the ways in which they were different that determined their fate and that of the kingdom. In Hamlet, the prince is Hamlet. He is in deep grieving of his father’s death. He is angry because he believes that everyone has already forgotten how great of a king his father was. Hamlet does not know for sure who is responsible for his father’s death, but he suspects Claudius who is his uncle and the new king. Hamlet decides that if he can convince everyone that he is insane, then maybe he will be able to get someone to tell him more about his father’s murder. In The Lion King, Simba is the prince. Simba’s father, Mufasa, is killed after he falls from a cliff into a herd of hyenas. Simba falls into a deep depression after his uncle Scar twists things around and convinces Simba that he is the one responsible for th e Mufasa’s death. Simba can not deal with what has happened and he runs away from the kingdom. In Hamlet, The new king Claudius is able to gain respect from the kingdom. He even steals the love of Hamlet’s mother Gertrude. The old king’s councilor, Polonius, becomes Claudius’s councilor and his best friend. He helps Claudius keep an eye on Hamlet and tries to keep him from finding out anything about his father’s death. Polonius believes that if he helps Claudius that he can make life better for himself and for his daughter and son. But in the end, his actions get him slayed, drive his daughter to insanity, and eventually set... ...f her son. She starts to feel the poison and she warns Hamlet of it before she dies. It is too late though, the poisonous sword had cut Hamlet. In anger, Hamlet steals the poisoned sword and runs it into Laertes. He then charges Claudius and runs it into him. He also takes the wine and forces Claudius to drink from it. Both Claudius and Laertes die before Hamlet. Hamlet regains his throne for a few seconds, until the poison sets in and takes his life. The Lion King has a happy ending. Simba returns to his kingdom and he finds Scar. He tells Scar that he knows about his father’s death. Scar lies to Simba by telling him that the Hyenas were the ones who killed Mufasa. This upsets the Hyenas. They leave Scar to fight Simba by himself. Simba wins the fight and throws Scar off a cliff, into the herd of the Hyenas. The hyenas show no remorse for Scar and they trample over him, killing him. Once Simba takes back the throne, the whole kingdom becomes beautiful again and everyone i s happy. The two stories had similar plots and characters. But in the end, the small differences in how the characters acted separated the tragedy of Hamlet from the happy ending of Disney’s The Lion King.

Is War Good or Bad Essay

The ongoing debate, is war good or bad? Usually if we see or hear the word â€Å"war† we think about the negative sides first. There is a saying that a forest fire burns everything in its path and it does destroy the forest but out of the ashes comes new life. War is similar to this. Out of destruction comes a new beginning. A country can benefit from war, by gaining wealth or freedom, increasing in power, and advancing in technology. But the reason why war seems only negative is because there is also destruction where millions of innocent people die, losing their resources and time, and also their money. Not only within the country but the whole world could be affected by war economically and socially. There are plenty of reasons why war is a bad thing. One main thing that comes to us directly and painfully is the death of the loved ones. Wars may solve problems but in the process it kills millions of people so war is cruel. A good example is the WW2, almost 50-60 million people died. Also in a war, the country has to spend a lot of money. It needs to provide weapons like tanks missiles etc., and it needs as many troops as possible. As Chinese strategist Tzu Sun said, â€Å"Where the army is, prices are high; when prices rise the wealth of the people is exhausted† (Tzu Sun, c.400 BCE). For the citizens this is very disappointing because all this money would eventually come from raised taxes and instead this could be spent on poor and uneducated people. As I said, war brings destruction. Inflation is also a problem. For example after the Angola’s Civil War, their currency was so useless that bottles of beer replaced it. Special landmarks, farms, and firms could be dest royed and the country could lose a lot of its resources. After the war, usually the country goes in a huge debt. On the other hand, war could be seen as a positive influence. Wars exist because people cannot agree on something. After the war it could be clear and they would agree and not fight anymore. Sometimes war could give freedom to a country. After war the country could become more powerful. If the war was because of land, after they win they have a bigger country with more resources. These resources could make the economy of the country rocket up. Also war in short-term is actually good for the economy. For example during the Great Depression, unemployment rate decreased. Since they need large amounts of weapons made quickly they hire more people and this leads to more jobs. Long-term wise a war could rebuild the economy of a country. Like the French, their production grew faster after WW1 and WW2. The country develops in technology too. They would need better more powerful strategies and weapons than the enemy’s so they research and develop in technology. Afterwards, this would b enefit the country greatly. Could this debate ever be over? I do not think so. As you can see, there are many bad and good sides of war. Overall I think wars are bad, because all these positive things are still not worth of millions of lives. And the good sides are if you win the war but that is not 100% sure. And even if things are resolved after the war, we are humans and we constantly want more. If the countries do not feel satisfied they might go into a second war and then a third and so on. So I think we should always find more peaceful ways than war.

Essay about Oppositional World Views Plato The Sophists

The Sophist views and beliefs originated in Ancient Greece around 400 B.C.E. The Sophists were known as wandering rhetoricians who gave speeches to those who could afford to listen. The Sophists deeply believed in the power of rhetoric and how it could improve one’s life. Plato on the other hand was opposed to all Sophist beliefs. He viewed the Sophists as rhetorical manipulators who were only interested in how people could be persuaded that they learned the truth, regardless if it was in fact the truth. Plato basically opposed every view the Sophists held true and tried to disprove them throughout his many dialogues. The Sophists and Plato held two very contrasting views and this paper will attempt to sift through them all in hopes of†¦show more content†¦There really can be no absolute truth then because the truth hinges solely on who presents a better argument. Just as the opposite of up is down, the opposite of right is wrong, and the opposite of good is evil, the opposite of the Sophists was Plato. Plato and his philosophies were also rooted in ancient Greece at the same time as the Sophists. Plato studied under Socrates, another famous ancient philosopher, and started the very first center for learning which he called the Academy. Plato was not what you would call a relativist though. He was exactly the opposite. He was opposed to all the beliefs of the Sophists, believing them to be only concerned with the manipulative aspects of how humans attain knowledge. He argued that they taught people how to persuade people into believing they heard the truth, even if it wasn’t in fact the truth. Plato believes that true rhetoric is where philosophers and their pupils become free from all worldly encumbrances and all conventional beliefs in the pursuit of a transcendent absolute truth. (Bizzell P. amp; Herzberg, B., 2001, pg. 29) Plato bel ieves that there is in fact absolute truth and contends that discourse is necessary to uncover it. He feels that false rhetoric is Sophist rhetoric and that with their vast knowledge of rhetoric, they should be using it to find absolute truth, not teaching people how to convince people thatShow MoreRelatedThe Athenian And Roman Empires7856 Words   |  32 PagesRoman Oration Introduction By the first century BC, the Rome had become a Pan-Mediterranean Empire. Its imperial apparatus spanned from Britain to Egypt and included a diverse body of peoples. The Romans inherited in their eastern provinces a world with a long tradition of cities and urbanism.1 Cities were a major factor in how the Roman Empire governed, and cities formed a traditional locus of social, political, and economic organization. Thoughts on cities during the second century AD continued