Victoria
The book Where the Red Fern Grows was written by Wilson, Rawls published in 1961 by Doubleday. Thirteen years later in 1974 a movie based on the book was released. Norman Tokar, the director of the film made sure that the movie had as many similarities to the book as possible while fitting in the 97 minute time range. This story is about a 12 year old boy named who lives in the Ozarks. Billy is completely satisfied with his life other than not having the one thing he has ever wanted, Red-Bone Coonhounds. Billy is more than determined to earn the money that his family doesn’t have, to afford these pups. After 2 long years of doing everything in his power to achieve his lifelong dream he finally gets his pups and nearly instantly
…show more content…
I saw the gleaming metal of the gold cup in his hand. After a short speech, he handed it to me, saying, "Son, this makes me very proud. It's a great honor to present you with this championship cup."” (Rawls, pg 111-112) This major difference in the movie didn’t compare to my satisfaction level in the book because in both the book and film we saw how hard Billy worked and in the movie it was a let down for the coon hunting championship to result this way. One last part of the plot that I think should have been included in the movie to match the book was when Little Ann falls into the icy river and nearly drowns. “Old Dan, a more powerful dog than Little Ann, had made his leap. Little Ann had not made it. Her small feet had probably slipped on the slick ice and she had fallen into the icy waters.” (Rawls, pg 60) This scene in the book contributes to the reader's understanding of the connection and love Billy has with/for his dogs as they do with him. This also builds onto Billy’s character showing that he is willing to risk his life to save something/someone that he loves, in this case being Little Ann. The book had more major events in the plot making it’s plot a lot more thicker and interesting compared to the …show more content…
When watching the movie I noticed that Billy only had two sisters in the movie differing to how the book Billy had three. “I was well repaid by the love and adoration I saw in the wide blue eyes of my three little sisters.” (Rawls, pg 14)This might not seem like a major difference because it’s only excluding one character but I feel that it is because it affects other parts of the movie. An example of this is that if there was a beauty contest and a silver cup that Billy had won the older sisters would be given the silver cup to share and the gold one to the younger sister. The whole beauty contest may have been excluded for this reason. This would have made the movie better because it would have been more realistic because in the year it takes place it was common to have large families. In the movie there was another flaw that I was able to point out being that Samie the cats’ character was excluded from the story. This affected the story greatly because in the book there were a few small events missing in the movie because of the absence of the character. One of these events was how in the book Billy was given three small steel traps by his dad which Samie later gets trapped in by accident. “The next morning I started trapping around the barn. The first thing I caught was Samie, our house cat. If this didn't cause a commotion! I didn't intend to catch him. I was trying to catch
The last similarity in the book and the movie was that Mae Tuck did end up sneaking out of jail and Winnie Foster didn’t drink from the spring and lived a normal life. There were many differences between the book and the movie. In the book it said
This particular dog clashed at Billy’s dogs with bad expectations and not long after, Old Blue is injured and Rubin is dead. Billy hasn’t interfered with the Pritchards ever since Rubin died. bitch All of you would know this (there are people and gangs). The people can make fun of other people. Gangs gang up
Billy worked hard to save up for two hunting dogs. He trained his dogs to be the best coon hounds in the Ozarks. Lots of exciting events occured in this book for example when a mountain lion got into a fight with the dogs. Or when one of the boys that he made a bet with dies. There are many other tragic things about the book but in my opinion the movie was better.
After he got the dogs he went home and started training them. And they made a bett with the Prichard boys and Rubin died. And Billy entered the contest and he got a trophy. In the book Billy got hunting dogs in Tahlequah because they wouldn’t let them on the box cart.
The movie did have most of the characteristics in the short story correct with only a few differences therefore it is a good adaptation of the story. It’s understandable that the movie added more scenes because the director might have wanted it to be more interesting rather than just have it exactly like the short story. In addition, a cliffhanger in a movie that is not part of a series would be very annoying. Nevertheless, the short story is better than the movie because the reader can read the descriptions of certain characters and are able to hear their thoughts. For example, the story says, “June is a secretary in the high school Connie attended, and if that wasn’t bad enough, she was so plain and chunky and steady that Connie had to hear her praised all the time by her mother and her mother’s sisters” (Oates 324).
But it was for Billy because it was for something he wanted something he needed and had worked ever so hard for. Not only does he get the dogs but he also loves his family and brings them gifts too. That is the loving part of undertaking a mission. All around Billy tried his hardest and didn’t give up. He ended up getting what
It does leave out some subplots and details, like the story about the Hermit who used to live in hell. In the movie they left out things about Ellie’s feelings for the boys, Lee and Homer, which the
Firstly, in my opinion I think it has more details than the movie. The book has the same characters but in the book there is three sisters. The book had details that felt so real. It described everything, the setting and the mood.
They were different because in the book Billy had 3 sisters and Billy had a scarecrow as a trap to trick the raccoon. The movie skipped all those things and I thought that that was important because they removed one of the family. In the book Billy didn't do school work and in the movie Billy did. When Billy got his dog, They all slept in a cave and in the movie they slept on the
[Little Ann] too had gone along. ”(42-43). This shows that Little Ann is so loyal to Old Dan, she slept with him for a night to keep him company. Little Ann also helps protect Billy from the mountain lion. She fights the feline predator with Old Dan just to save Billy.
Then he come across an advertisement from an old magazine. After he sees the ad he saves up money by doing odd jobs to get the hounds. After a lot of months of saving. He asks his grandpa to order them and weeks of waiting the note comes in to tell them where they are. Billy couldn't wait a few more days to get them, so he goes out6 by himself to get them after that he trains the dogs every day for the contest.
After two years of hard work and patience, Billy finally saved up to buy two red hounds. Billy and the two dogs went through hardships together and he stayed by their side til the end. After analyzing and comparing both the novel and the movie, I strongly believe that the story was interpreted better in the novel because
In the end I found the film to be easier to understand vs the book as it was an easier and more straight forward plot line whereas in the book it seemed to jump around leading to constant flipping between stories and pages to get a better
The movie only focuses on the story of the Andrea Gail and the men from Gloucester. I think the overall story is better off this way. For example, I think if the book was written like this, the reader would become more connected to the characters and the book. The reader would go through the same emotions and feelings as the characters because they experienced the same event simultaneously. All in all, I think the book has a great story, but lacks a proper structure for the story at hand.
If I didn 't have the book I still think that I would be able to follow along with the movie and know what is going on. I really did like the story. It was different than any other books. It was funny and adventures but at times it was very mature. The lesson that anyone can learn is don 't change something you believe in because other people say it is not true.