Both are great, but we see a more development for Tarzan because he goes in first 'Tarzan' movie from childhood to adulthood. However, if you include the second 'Jungle Book' movie, Mowgli receives about the same amount of character development because of emotional growth in his two movies combined (although, that can be said for Tarzan too).
If I understood right, in some guy named Kipling's stories Mowgli's parents were killed in a tiger attack.
That makes no sense for the Disney version, though; Shere Khan had no idea about Mowgli until the kid was 11 and I'm pretty sure there are no other tigers in that specific jungle the wolves were only concerned about Shere Kahn's return.
Our Family the original book's able to make Grandma cry a bit, But I enjoy wildlife stories enough to only feel nervous about what happens next while reading such a Kipling book. I love the changes Disney gave the story however.
In Tarzan's animated movies I love what the main messages are, but I don't like that his live action movie show Africa slavery problems. And I've been told by an author his orginal old books are much wilder than his videos..........
Elephant777 wrote: Strictly in the world of disney. Jungle Book wins
In the world of books Tarzan is the greatest animal classic to exist, and if I might add a lot more thrilling
I disagree. The Jungle Books were far more poetic, elegant and Nobel-prize worthy. It also had a bit better characters, with Kaa, Mowgli, Bagheera and Akela being the best of them all. I also like the idea of depicting Mowgli as more of an academic who relies on cunning rather than a warlord-type who relies on brute force like Tarzan. Heck, we have Rudyard Kipling to thank for kickstarting the modern animal fantasy genre as well as the fact that The Jungle Book had more impact on cultures, particularly in literature, zoology and scouting. There's even a species of spider named after Bagheera.
No Thobbi they were short fables lengthened and a few folktale stories / legends added in section like Lettinging In the Jungle. And Kipling added the laws of the jungle. And in the orginal books Sheer Kahn was nothing as calm when chatting, it was the wolf pack that was watchful and brave at the same time. Sheer Kahn wished to hurt poor Mowgli repeatedly if it weren't for the wolves who protected Mowgli the poor boy would have died.
The Wikipedia of the books that are the Jungle Book Series is what tells you the chapters are mainly long fables.
And your point is what exactly? That the Jungle Books were not poetic, elegant and well written and less influential just because they're a collection of Kipling's works and "fables"? And I've read the books several times, I know perfectly well that Shere Khan was a coward with a crippled leg who relied on his minion and cunning wit. But that's what makes him a challenge for Mowgli, Shere Khan doesn't have the guts to attack Mowgli directly and Mowgli isn't physically strong enough to engage Shere Khan in combat without weapons. Meaning that they have to use their minds and intellect against each other. And through the teachings of Kaa, Baloo and Bagheera, Mowgli eventually becomes wiser than his enemy. And of course he would have died if not for Raksha, Mowgli was a defenseless child when Shere Khan found him first
Also, the Jungle Books are not folktales. They were all written by Kipling himself (who may have been inspired by some folktales in one way or another, after all, children raised by animals was not unheard of). They are not legends either, that would imply that they have some basis in reality in them. And a mongoose protecting a family from cobras or a feral child who can talk to all animals and retain his human attributes despite being raised by wolves has no basis in reality at all. In fact, a child raised by animals is a very sad thing.
No. Legends are semi-true stories that are based on historical facts one way or another (hence most legends are not outside the realm of possibility). Folktales are stories that are passed from generation to generation and fables are mythical morality tales. Whether the protagonist is an animal or human or the writing style of the stories is completely irrelevant.
It depends young user Admit how numerous Robin Hood's stories are, plus all the variations in each. Not every legend has a real life hero just most. Plus the numerous scenes of Arthor that are legends but not realistic too.
Fable aren't the same as Myths. Fables offer messages by who did what and how the problem was caused. Myths have a different sort of message to find.
Folktales are passed from generation to generation, but not all of them have the animals doing a real task, that's where they have the hidden similarity. Not all legends show real animals or introduce the real hero, plus how many legends show magic which is fake.
Legends, Folktales, and Fables, what all three have is animals talking to each other quite frequently.
Legends aren't inherently realistic, usually they're simply romanticized tales of real events. For all we know, Robin Hood and Arthur were real people, but what they did may have been exaggerated in one way or another. "how many legends show magic which is fake." define "magic". And magic can easily just be interpreted as something which people back then couldn't explain but truly believed that existed. Why else do you think witch hunts were so common? And no, legends are not about animals unless the animal is not depicted beyond what's natural. At least I've never heard of a legend of anthropomorphic animals.
I never said myths and fables were the same. Fables are usually just morality tales that have no evidence of happening in real life. Myths are symbolic tales based on legends.
Anyway, the point is, the Jungle Books are not collection of fables, legends, folktales or myths. They are simply tales and poems written by Kipling himself to be a symbolic depiction of British India.
And what does your point have to do with the cultural impact the Jungle Book had on the world? This is about a comparison between The Jungle Book and Tarzan and the fact that I think the original Jungle Book is better than Tarzan of the Apes (because the original Jungle Books are not about a bratty child in red loincloth who gets himself in trouble like in the Disney versions, but rather an elegant tale about community, law and survival)
The main Event is not always a real one is the key fact. And No Robin Hood is a fellow hundreds of people around the world question only Arthur's is doubtlessly historic. There's even a scene in The Last Unicorn animated movie that shows proof of the question of Robin Hood. Legend is the usual word used when it's Native American animal stories, but their myths are their more relgious style of stories. You're picturing the fantasy list.
Magic doesn't always mean somthing fictional, there are tons of times it's used for an emotinal expression instead.
In Fables the event isn't what's real But the message is a True Fact of how to be careful with things like descision making.
And Hey My Grandma and I just don't react to wildlife stories the same way, in my personal reaction Shere Khan's wish is my biggest problem while reading the story, that Kaa is a snake is another problem in my list in stuff like reactions and emotions, and then how unkind Mowglli treats most of the other animals except Baloo, Bagheera, and his pack that's enough of a problem to make me drop the book epsecially scenes in the sequel. Grandma's even surprised I'll watch the live-action movies of Mowgli. And cutting an animals tail that's as mean as animal abuse, that's why the dhole fight aggravated so quick. I've read the Red Dogs chapter in Kipling's book myself, and couldn't go any further.
MESSAGES FROM STORIES AND THE EVENTS AREN'T THE EXACT SAME THING. I have plenty of insight to find tons of messages hidden in regular chapter books.
There is no evidence to rule out either Robin Hood or Arthur's existence. For all we know, there may well have been a talented archer under the name of Robin Hood who stole from the rich to give to the poor, and people being so thankful that they made stories about him. And there may well have been a king named Arthur who had loyal knights at his side.
And you clearly don't know what legends are. Legends don't belong to any one specific culture or nation. Like I said, they are in general romanticized tellings of real events that alters with time, but are not outside the realm of reality. "used for an emotional expression." I believe the word you're looking for is symbolism. And that is not always the case. Like I said, there was a time when people truly believed that magic exists, and usually associated any kind of witchcraft with Satan or some evil supernatural forces because they were afraid of anything that's different. Heck, that's even something in the Jungle Book, where the village labels Mowgli as an evil sorcerer because he can talk to animals.
"But the message is a True Fact of how to be careful with things like descision making." In other words: morality tales. You basically just repeated after me with different words.
" And cutting an animals tail that's as mean as animal abuse" What did you expect? The Jungle Book is not meant to be a light-hearted tale of animal cuteness. It's meant to be a dark story. And Mowgli cutting off a dhole's tail was not animal abuse because the red dogs were the invaders and the only reason Mowgli did it was to make them angry enough to begin their attack prematurely, ensuring their failure.
And how did Mowgli mistreat other animals? Kaa was like a brother to him, he was on good terms with Hathi, he did not carry a grudge against the Bandar-log despite that they kidnapped him once and he loved Messua like a mother and even escorted her to through the jungle to a different village after he saved her from the villagers' wrath.
And what exactly is the problem with emotions and reactions? "That Kaa is a snake" Umm...when has he not been a snake? And how is the pack a problem? Are you talking about when they considered throwing Mowgli out when Raksha showed him to Akela? Because they didn't do that out of cruelty, but out of concern for the pack itself and because they didn't know what to do with him and only allowed him to stay because Bagheera bargained for his life with a freshly caught bull. But yes, the pack was sometimes a bit unfair to Mowgli, which is why Kaa chose not to participate in the battle against the red dogs.
Quit your mocking what styles of stories I don't Know Young One! I read fiction stuff daily reading three to six book a month. It's A Magical Miracle, phrases like that are firm gratitude, not symbolism young one. And I'm alright with others believing in magic, I'm just not one them, even though I'm a big fantasy fan.
I'm just more used to the fiction book novels that have the human protected and thoughtfully saved by an animl friend, or sometimes several animal friends, especially those who want to save a whole wide territory from a mean character. I'm not used to the sort of stories that let the fights repeat I'm only used to fictions that are Science Fiction or Fantasy stories of friendship and messages of how to figure out who you are. Mowlgi doesn't cooperate, but I've read tons of fiction stories that have animals and humans cooperating while solving a huge problem.
And you user The SEEONEE PACK IS NO PROBLEM TO ME BUT NEITHER ARE THE DHOLES, OR THE JACKAL. it's Mowgli's fighting I don't like. I cosider the Seeonee pack quite thoughtful I know the pack was helping Mowgli, Akela's even nice enough to make me daydream. Mainly I don't like how often Mowgli behaves rough or impolite himself, once in a while ignoring good advice and I've always thought the Seeonee pack gives Mowgli some of the best advice. He's a feral kid who doesn't seem that thankful for what the seeonee pack did for him. And they are what they are in the story however I never listen to which category each character is in Dholes are cousins of wolves. In Mowgli's story they just don't use the same sort of speech while reasoning with him, but rudely he doesn't accept that, he doesn't accept who they are at all, he just fights without thinking.
In The Family of Canines I don't care which Species I'm speaking For, I love to Support the Canidae. Wolf, Dhole, Jackal all three are in the Canidae family. That's the thing, I don't at all believe in evil stuff I only beileve in peace, but I know bad things exist so I also use my courage. I Stand Up For The Canines emotionally, sharing true loyalty.
And animals like the frightening snake family is no sibling sort of creature to me, I can only look at the turtles calmly young one, family beliefs vary from person to person. Plus Mowgli didn't always want to share the jungle with the tolerant elephants saying it's not your jungle that's talking like he wanted to take over the whole area which would be quite rude. His jokes with the Bat weren't polite jokes at all they were more a teasing style. And because I love the whole Canidae family I do but Mowgli sure didn't care how the golden jackal felt after his responses which is unfriendly that's like fighting silently. And Then that Mowgli used no self-control while talking to the monkeys he could have at least used tolerance to talk and confidence to do self-defense much calmer, but he uses neither one.
Grandma's Just different enough that she can't open up a book of such a dark tale, But with a little more courage and interest Red Dogs was as far as I could read. After reading Red Dogs in the sequel I couldn't control my frown of Mowgli's disrespect.
"Quit your mocking what styles of stories I don't Know Young One! I read fiction stuff daily reading three to six book a month. It's A Magical Miracle, phrases like that are firm gratitude, not symbolism young one. And I'm alright with others believing in magic, I'm just not one them, even though I'm a big fantasy fan."
First of all, your arrogance isn't getting you anywhere. Second of all, I never said anyone here believed in magic, just that people during the middle ages (where most legends originated) did. Third of all, phrases like that ARE symbolic. No matter how much you deny it.
" I'm not used to the sort of stories that let the fights repeat I'm only used to fictions that are Science Fiction or Fantasy stories of friendship and messages of how to figure out who you are. Mowlgi doesn't cooperate, but I've read tons of fiction stories that have animals and humans cooperating while solving a huge problem."
Okay? Good for you, I guess. Your point still isn't clear though.
" it's Mowgli's fighting I don't like. I cosider the Seeonee pack quite thoughtful I know the pack was helping Mowgli, Akela's even nice enough to make me daydream. Mainly I don't like how often Mowgli behaves rough or impolite himself, once in a while ignoring good advice and I've always thought the Seeonee pack gives Mowgli some of the best advice. He's a feral kid who doesn't seem that thankful for what the seeonee pack did for him."
How was Mowgli not thankful to the pack? He hunted on their behalf, he fought on their behalf, he respected their laws and customs in every way and he saved Akela when Shere Khan convinced everyone that he was too old to lead the pack and was to be rightfully killed by his fellow wolves.
"In Mowgli's story they just don't use the same sort of speech while reasoning with him, but rudely he doesn't accept that, he doesn't accept who they are at all, he just fights without thinking."
Without thinking of what? Mowgli was not the one to suggest a battle against the dholes, Akela did that. Mowgli was just one of many who accepted the fight to protect the homeland which the red dogs sought to conquer and plunder.
"In The Family of Canines I don't care which Species I'm speaking For, I love to Support the Canidae. Wolf, Dhole, Jackal all three are in the Canidae family. That's the thing, I don't at all believe in evil stuff I only beileve in peace, but I know bad things exist so I also use my courage. I Stand Up For The Canines emotionally, sharing true loyalty."
That has literally nothing to do with this, so I have no idea why you're bringing that up. lol. But what Mowgli did to one of the dholes, he had every reason to do that. Need I remind you that Mowgli himself was raised as a wolf, so he shared just as much of their nature as any canine did. The only difference is that he was always allowed to embrace his human side as well.
"And animals like the frightening snake family is no sibling sort of creature to me, I can only look at the turtles calmly young one, family beliefs vary from person to person."
I think it's safe to assume you are the young one here, kid. lol. And Kaa was a brother-like figure to Mowgli. Their relationship was deep and developed throughout the story. And while I haven't heard of any reptile that has genuine love for a human being, snakes are common pets for humans and do tolerate them.
"Plus Mowgli didn't always want to share the jungle with the tolerant elephants saying it's not your jungle that's talking like he wanted to take over the whole area which would be quite rude."
He only said that in the Disney version. Not in the books. In the book, he was very respectful of the elephants as the elephants were essentially the lords of the jungle.
"And because I love the whole Canidae family I do but Mowgli sure didn't care how the golden jackal felt after his responses which is unfriendly that's like fighting silently."
That's because Tabaqui was a sniffling coward loyal only to Shere Khan and did nothing but spread mischief throughout the jungle. And it wasn't just Mowgli who hated Tabaqui. Bagheera, Baloo and the wolves all did too.
"And Then that Mowgli used no self-control while talking to the monkeys he could have at least used tolerance to talk and confidence to do self-defense much calmer, but he uses neither one."
Self-control for what? The bandar-log were only able to trick him because it was back when Mowgli was just a child who didn't know any better. He didn't remain naïve forever, you know. Talk to them? Baloo made it very clear that the bandar-log can't be reasoned with as they are nothing but disorganized band of disrespectful twits who live outside the law. Self-defense? Mowgli didn't fight them, Baloo, Bagheera and Kaa did.
No young user Mowgli's old enough to use manners but he refuses pretty much no matter who he's talking with, he lets himself be angry for no reason. Enemy or pal I don't care which one I'm facing I'm can talk polite enough to show personal strength, however Mowgli just argues when there's no need to. Mowgli does things in too much of a hurry, which can be dangerous. And Mowgli DID AT LEAST SHOW HATRED THAT'S ENOUGH RUDENESS TO EXPRESS A WISH TO FIGHT young user.
IT's mainly the same thing with the monkeys, no one wanted to accept who they were, they were the ones tolerated the least even if they weren't completely mean. Others hated how active they were. The monkeys just wanted to talk but others hated them enough to fight, and did it impatiently. They could have at least clarified, or reasoned first.
You are the only young user here, so I'm afraid you are the only one who deserves to be treated like a "young one." lol
Child, you clearly haven't even read the Jungle Book. Because Mowgli was rarely angry. Emotional, yes, but he was still very rational. "And Mowgli DID AT LEAST SHOW HATRED THAT'S ENOUGH RUDENESS TO EXPRESS A WISH TO FIGHT young user." No, young child. Mowgli did not fight out of hatred, but to battle for his home and his kin. So whether you like it or not, Mowgli's actions against the dholes were 100% justified.
"Enemy or pal I don't care which one I'm facing I'm can talk polite enough to show personal strength, however Mowgli just argues when there's no need to." Don't be hypocritical. You yourself haven't been very polite here at all. Also, no. The only times Mowgli argued in the books was against the cobra who guarded the ancient treasure, against Buldeo and his superstitions and against Baloo regarding the bandar-log. So remember to read the book before presenting your argument, young child.
"Mowgli does things in too much of a hurry, which can be dangerous." No, child. He doesn't. We both know you're making this up. Mowgli was known as an academic who heavily emphasized on cunning and wisdom. That's how he managed to kill Shere Khan, by trapping him in a ravine where he was killed by a stampede of buffaloes.
"no one wanted to accept who they were, they were the ones tolerated the least even if they weren't completely mean."
Because the monkeys had done nothing to earn their acceptance. They have only acted as irresponsible chatterers who care nothing for the law or for others. It has nothing to do with being active, young one. But how they spent their activity.
"The monkeys just wanted to talk but others hated them enough to fight, and did it impatiently."
No, they wanted to irritate everyone else for their own amusement. They are the kind of people that you would report to the police for noice pollution. And no, no one ever tried to fight them except Kaa, Baloo and Bagheera. And that's only because they kidnapped Mowgli. The Seoni jungle is meant to symbolize society, and the bandar-log are the scum of society.
QUIT IT Thobbi1 WE JUST DON'T PICTURE PEACE AND MANNERS THE EXACT SAME WAY! I'm not any hypocritical 27 year old at alL My. loyalty is what surprised classmates at school while good manners being daily is what surprised my teachers. This thing of manners and peace being pictured quite differently is all around the world, not only the two of us. So halt your rude phrases of anger / irritation over such a subject.
I've read with extra practice as well as the piano's help so I'm don't lack skills in reading. I just have enough insight to see details the majoroity refuse to focus on, plus facts of behavior offerd from social worker women. So quit talking like I'm insane. Your rude words won't weaken me.
I can read those big young adult science fiction books that have over 600 pages and find like 5 messages. I have plenty of insight over behavioir stuff to know clearly your repeating my comments was to mock me. Even if you won't confess it I won't be deceived by you..
I don't know what's going on, but I think the two of you need need to back off from one another, and stop trying to insist that one or the other knows better in these discussions. This kind of talk leads to pointless arguing that has no end. Discontinue while you can LionGuardEscort198 and Thobbi otherwise the both of you will be given time out. I don't care who's at fault here, you stop or I stop it for you.
The Jungle Book is more expansive for me. It has a more adventure feel to it. It has great characters, songs and a great plot with a great villain. Tarzan has a few good memorable parts but my preferance would go to The Jungle Book.
I like Tarzan but the Jungle Book is the one I'm a big enough fan of to expand to stories of including scenes of Tabaqui in his original form the golden jackal. But I'm also sorry for the dholes since no one wants to improve their books scenes before showing the live-action sequel I can't tolerate the scene of Mowgli cutting a dhole's tail it puts me close to tears. But I love the animated films and when you're asking which movie did better with Mowgli's pack I'd say it's the live-action that did better.