Red Fern Essay In 1961, a famous author named Willson Rawls wrote a book called “Where the Red Fern Grows”. 13 years later, a person named Norman Tokar made a live action. For many years, people have been debating if the book or movie was better. In my opinion, the book was much better because the movie lacked key details, important characters, and a plot that kept the topic engaging. Also, the amount of detail the book gave, made it super easy to visualize. It would have been better if Rawls directed the movie instead of Norman Tokar because he made the book, and would have helped the actors to understand their roles a lot more. In addition, the movie lacks character development, which makes it not as enjoyable. The book had more devolved characters compared to the movie, which lacked character development and felt plain because of its sheer amount of detail. The movie was also deficient in showing the characteristics of …show more content…
An example of this is at the coon hunting tournament, there was a mini tournament for the most beautiful hound. Little Ann won it and she got a silver cup, and in the movie, they ditched the idea. “Handing me a small silver cup.”(Rawls pg. 93. What is the difference between a '' and ''? Red Fern: Also in the book during the tournament, there was a gun that the judge was talking about, but in the movie, they didn't even mention one thing about a gun. The judge said it was a 410-gauge pistol,” Rawls said. 96. What is the difference between a '' and a ''? Red Fern) As well in the book Billy won the coon hunting tournament all by himself and needed no help. But in the movie, someone else won and gave Billy the reward. I hate this because it shows the lack of character development.” “Son, this makes me very proud, it's a great honor to present you with this championship cup.” (Rawls pg. 112. The syllable of the syllable. Red
Is your heart still in the right place? Has a story ever run with it and broken it, with tears running down your face? If you have read Where the Red Fern Grows, it has definitely happened, making your heart buoyant with happiness and and break with tragedy. The strong-willed Billy, with his faithful redbone hounds, the brawny Old Dan and the brainy runt Little Ann, toy with your emotions as you follow them through their adventures and their tragic losses. Even though the movie based off the book is meant to be similar, and is, there are still differences between them.
This is my view on the movie and book. I likes the movie better the book because the
The book Where The Red Fern Grows written by Wilson Rawls was made in 1961. Then the movie came out in 1974. In my personal opinion the book is better but that's just me. The reason i like the book better is because it has more detail i feel like the movie went by way too fast. Where The Red Fern Grows is about a little boy who wants some coonhounds and when he finally gets them he raises them into some of the best hounds.
Where the Red Fern Grows by Wilson Rawls takes the reader on an adventure through the Cherokee country. The setting takes place in the Ozark Mountains of Missouri or Oklahoma during the 1920’s. Most of the story is set in the wild outdoors and in the country home of Billy Coleman. The story has an inspiring but sad tone. Wilson Rawls tells a story of a boy, his hounds, and true love.
In conclusion, details involving the characters and symbolic meanings to objects are the factors that make the novel better than the movie. Leaving out aspects of the novel limits the viewer’s appreciation for the story. One may favor the film over the novel or vice versa, but that person will not overlook the intense work that went into the making of both. The film and novel have their similarities and differences, but both effectively communicate their meaning to the public.
In the movie we saw more characters that made it more interesting. Some of the characters that were not included in the book were Lisa and the
The book and the movie were both very good. The book took time to explain things like setting, people’s emotions, people’s traits, and important background information. There was no time for these explanations the movie. The book, however, had parts in the beginning where some readers could become flustered.
At this point, the readers create their own movie in a way. They will determine important aspects of how the character speaks, looks like, and reacts. Whereas, in the movie, the reader has no choice but to follow the plot laid out in front of them. No longer can they picture the characters in their own way or come up with their different portrayals. The fate of the story, while still unpredictable, was highly influenced by the way the characters looked, spoke, and presented themselves on screen.
In the year 1961, a 48 year old man, Wilson Rawls, published a book. This book is a very emotional book for many people. This book is known as, “Where The Red Fern Grows”. Fortunately, 13 years later, a 55 year old man, Norman Tokar, made a movie out of the book. This movie is all based on the book with good acting and a well developed pace.
The film version of the plotline was more clear and easier to interpret compared to the book version. It helped correctly capture the desired meaning told by the author.
I have always believed that the book is always better than the movie. Even though the visual effects on the movie helps out a lot, the book is always better. The book is just the original thing. This means that it tells the story that it was meant to
On the other hand, the novel is much slower with more specific details that ultimately help add to the plot which helps the reader feel like they are apart of the scene. The novel is about 246 pages long and has long transitions between each conflict to give the sense of what happened before instead of zooming right to the conflicts. Both the novel and the film both have their pros and cons that can help distinguished which one really fits the appropriate fit. If you want a fast, concluding story that catches to the chase quickly and gives the straightforward, bottom based plot then the movie is the best choice. But if you are looking for a detailed story that is going to be
Between the film and the novel there was some differences that seemed minor but they affected the relationships between the characters that changed the way you thought of the characters. For example, in the film they didn’t go into detail about Nick and Jordan’s relationship or they made Daisy seem so innocent in the movie but
Imagine a scenario in which the characters of Grimm’s fairy tales become intertwined into one storyline, but with a modern twist on the idealism of fairy tales. Moreover, such an instance comes to life with “Into the Woods.” Furthermore, the film adaptation of the Broadway play bolsters the dark but satirical tone through its whimsical yet grimy sets, and its mysterious lighting, and generally impressive special effects. Additionally, the social status of the characters is often told through the costumes they wear. The songs in this musical, many of which were based on the play, were supported through the background music, of which helps to establish the emotions during said songs.
If you haven't been living in your uncle's basement for 25 years with food being brought to you periodically, you probably know that lately, the majority of the best selling movies today have been movie adaptions from books. Popular movies of this type include the Hunger Games series, the Divergent series, American Sniper, and the Hobbit. However, you can't talk about those movies without discussing the difference between the book and movie. That's why in today's essay, The Hobbit book and movie trilogy will be scrutinized, and discussed. This writing piece will look at the unique chracteristics of both pieces of media, while also looking at the similarities between the two.