Watership Down 2018

[HexMachina]

It was ok. Animation was disappointing like we all expected. I’m not sold on Boyega’s voice acting but may grow on me over time, we’ll see.

 

[drawkcabi]

Watching the first episode now on Netflix on my laptop.

Maybe the animation doesn't look too good to people but you know who loves it?

My dog! 

She's in my lap right now and she's captivated by it. Her ears are pointed straight up and her eyes won't leave the screen as she follows the movement.

[dog-days]

Seen both episodes now ( it was shown in two parts on the BBC). Not impressed. I love the book, and the 1978 adaptation has a very special place in my heart. I was traumatised by it as a young child, and like many children, I rather enjoyed the trauma. I even had a pet rabbit called Hazel. I think that removing the blood and horror was more for the benefit of squeamish adults than children. 

Spoiler

 

Pluses

- kudos for using the beginning of the novel of Watership Down at the end

Minuses

- the extra material with the does was badly written and mostly made the does seem terribly wet, minus Strawberry, who is clearly a Bunny of Steel. It slowed the pace, and added nothing interesting or original. It just seemed to be material spliced in from generic adventure tv shows. 

- uninspiring speeches, and moral lectures on liberty and freedom. etc. Wish the writers had seen the S7 Buffy episode where everyone gets bored of the speeches. Watership Down the novel/film did a great deal of showing, not telling. Cowslip's warren, and Efrafra, demonstrate the ideas in themselves. And Hazel and his friends are sympathetic without calling on lofty (in modern times often abused) ideas to back them up. They want a happy, peaceful life where they aren't told what to do by bigger rabbits. That's really enough. 

- animation. It wasn't terrible, but as others have suggested, stop motion might have been a better choice. It would have differentiated it from the 1978 2d animation, butt I think allows more room for visual creativity and symbolism than the attempt at photo-realistic CGI we had here. 

 

Right, altogether now: 

Quote

All the world will be your enemy, prince with a thousand enemies. And whenever they catch you, they will kill you. But first, they must catch you, digger, listener, runner, prince with a swift warning. Be cunning, and full of tricks, and your people will never be destroyed.

 

[Mosi Mynn]

19 minutes ago, dog-days said:

 

  Hide contents

 

Pluses

- kudos for using the beginning of the novel of Watership Down at the end

 

This was the only bit I liked too.

The impact of every moment was squandered with the speechifying.  I mean:

Spoiler

Hazel tells Bigwig to say The Line - destroying the moment for all concerned

I don't know why any rabbit would follow this Hazel: he's whiny, desperate to be liked, shows no leadership skills whatsoever, and is willing to risk everyone's lives for a doe he met once!  I guess he is Super Bunny, as he managed to trek to Efrafa one day after being shot!

I had trouble telling the rabbits apart - which was not a problem in the 1978 film.  They could have made the hutch rabbits completely different colours, which would have helped.  And it makes the omission of Silver and Pipkin in particular silly, as these two had distinguishable physical characteristics.

I don't think I liked any of the changes, but four five that made no sense to me were:

• Spoiler

   

  • Fiver not being the one to find Hazel after he was shot
  • Not using a punt to get away from the Efrafans
  • Efrafa being so close to ... everywhere, apparently
  • Bigwig Bigwig Bigwig - not being superstitious, being a complete dick to everyone throughout, volunteering to go into Efrafa, and once there claiming to be a storyteller - um, why?
  • Fiver, Hazel and Blackavar being the ones to get the dog at the end.  Hazel - the lame rabbit (at least, I think he was supposed to still be lame at this point) - being one of the runners!

   

   

[dog-days]

11 hours ago, Mosi Mynn said:

I don't know why any rabbit would follow this Hazel: he's whiny, desperate to be liked, shows no leadership skills whatsoever, and is willing to risk everyone's lives for a doe he met once!  I guess he is Super Bunny, as he managed to trek to Efrafa one day after being shot

Spoiler

Bigwig Bigwig Bigwig - not being superstitious, being a complete dick to everyone throughout, volunteering to go into Efrafa, and once there claiming to be a storyteller - um, why?

 

Yeah, I had the feeling that the writers were obsessed with character arcs. They were thinking: "The characters have to change!  They have to reevaluate their identity! They have to remind the audience that they are changing their self-image frequently through obvious dialogue!"

Someone should have told them that it's okay to just let the characters be themselves as hard as possible. More is not necessary. I was reading yesterday about the characters of Hazel and Bigwig, and how Adams partly based them on people he'd known in the parachute regiment in WW2. Bigwig was based on Desmond "Paddy" Kavanagh ( mentioned here https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/94/a4466694.shtml ) who was known for playing with live grenades. Major John Gifford was the model for Hazel. 

Wanted to say more, but interruptions keep happening. 

[Mosi Mynn]

1 hour ago, dog-days said:

Yeah, I had the feeling that the writers were obsessed with character arcs. They were thinking: "The characters have to change!  They have to reevaluate their identity! They have to remind the audience that they are changing their self-image frequently through obvious dialogue!" 

But Hazel and Bigwig had character arcs in the book!  Hazel gained confidence as they travelled, and learned to trust everyone around him so that he could get the best out of them.  He never assumed he was supposed to be Chief Rabbit - he grew naturally into the role.  And Bigwig had an epic character arc, culminating in The Line (the impact of which was utterly squandered in this adaptation).

Quote

Someone should have told them that it's okay to just let the characters be themselves as hard as possible. More is not necessary. I was reading yesterday about the characters of Hazel and Bigwig, and how Adams partly based them on people he'd known in the parachute regiment in WW2. Bigwig was based on Desmond "Paddy" Kavanagh ( mentioned here https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ww2peopleswar/stories/94/a4466694.shtml ) who was known for playing with live grenades. Major John Gifford was the model for Hazel. 

I was thinking about this with both of them - Hazel in particular, who possessed none of the quiet authority and decency of his book version, which I assume was close in character to Major Gifford.

[Isis]

I've just watched the whole thing. I put off starting it as it's had such poor reviews and I expected to hate it. But I thought it was generally fine...

I have to say the shining wire scene had me in tears, so they must have done something right. I see it as being along the same lines as Gandalf's fall in Moria, it's kinda hard not to respond to it with emotion.

However!

I was really cross that they had Hazel tell Bigwig to call him his chief rabbit. That ruined the whole concept of Bigwig finally being willing to acknowledge Hazel publicly as his leader. It was just crass.

Hang on, do I even need to spoiler tag anything in this thread now?

The events/sequence got a bit muddled to me. The part where Keehar doesn't show up and they go to the 'people warren' - I found that confusing.

[Mosi Mynn]

Yeah - let's ditch the spoiler tags 

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, Isis said:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

The events/sequence got a bit muddled to me. The part where Keehar doesn't show up and they go to the 'people warren' - I found that confusing.

It seemed the main point of that was so they could show the bench with the Richard Adams memorial plaque 

[Teng Ai Hui]

On 12/24/2018 at 5:25 PM, Mosi Mynn said:

I had trouble telling the rabbits apart - which was not a problem in the 1978 film. 

 

This part caused a lot of confusion for me.  As a result, I found episode 2 (The Raid) absolutely unwatchable. 

[BigFatCoward]

Fuck it, im not going to bother watching it. I have too much to do without wasting time watching something that will ruin part of my childhood. 

[Isis]

If you've read the book and watched the film then you don't have anything to lose. 

The bad reviews were off putting but I wanted to see myself what it was like. 

[red snow]

I'm more concerned about wasting 4 hours viewing time than any "damaging of my youth" (largely because I read/watch the other versions fairly often so easy enough to 'member).

BBC viewership fall-off was pretty bad and relatives who tried watching it were mostly put off by the animation and fact the design crew have been given a picture of a Hare and not a rabbit to base everything off.

I suspect this is only being watched by me on a hangover day so chances are it'll be sometime on Netflix instead of bbc. Given they've had a few years to make this it's a shame they didn't put more thought into the appearance of it. Then again a lot of the comments here suggest they should have spent more time on the script and characterisation too,

[HexMachina]

It’s actually in four parts on iPlayer so I guess if you are worried about time wasting you can always just watch one part (50mins each) and see how you find it.

i have the final part to watch tonight. As I expected Boyega’s voice acting has grown on me. The other issues people have mentioned I am also struggling with though

[Mosi Mynn]

4 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Fuck it, im not going to bother watching it. I have too much to do without wasting time watching something that will ruin part of my childhood. 

I'll always have the book, and this won't ever ruin that.

It was a disappointing re-telling, though.

[dog-days]

One thing I will say for it is that it prompted me to rewatch the 1978 version, as well as reminding me that I've been meaning to read more of Adams's works. 

I'd forgotten how much I loved the beautiful score. The media tends to dwell on the violence/horror when they talk about the film, but forgets scenes such as the one where the rabbits run up the side of a hill in the sunshine, and the main theme surges up at the same time. Lovely, lovely moment. 

 

[SeanF]

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 1:07 PM, Mosi Mynn said:

Yes exactly!

One of the great things about Watership Down is its studies in leadership - from the Threarah's patriachy to whatever warped sacrificial communism Cowslip was up to, to Woundwort's oppressive might-is-right dictatorship.  And then there's Hazel - not the fastest or most eloquent, never actually fights anyone, not the cleverest or the strongest, and is lame by the end.  But he values everyone (and everyone knows that), and he brings out the best in those around him, and he's willing to sacrifice himself for his friends and his warren: a true Chief Rabbit.

This is one of my favourite bits in any book (and it wasn't in the film!).  Bigwig finally calling Hazel his Chief Rabbit (though he had accepted him as leader long before).  Woundwort freaking out at the thought of a rabbit bigger and fiercer than Bigwig (who had just beaten him, and Woundwort knew that), because the Efrafans can't imagine a leader being anything but the biggest, most ferocious bully - it would never occur to Woundwort that the lame rabbit who came to  him before the fight to talk about peace was Bigwig's Chief.  Such a wonderful moment in the story.

That is great.

But, also moving is the fact that Woundwort was almost persuaded by Hazel's argument in favour of peace (he knows that Efrafa is on the point of explosion) before his desire to save face makes him reject it.  Woundwort in the books is almost a great leader, not just a thug.

[Prince of the North]

My 12 year old daughter and I just binged this.  I wanted her to read the book first but, of course, that didn't happen.  However, she loved this show and I'm sure she'll seek out the book now.  I really enjoyed it as well.  It's been...I don't know exactly, 35 years or so...since I read the book and it's also been a very long time since I've seen the 1978 animated version.  

[Mosi Mynn]

On 1/2/2019 at 3:52 PM, SeanF said:

That is great.

But, also moving is the fact that Woundwort was almost persuaded by Hazel's argument in favour of peace (he knows that Efrafa is on the point of explosion) before his desire to save face makes him reject it.  Woundwort in the books is almost a great leader, not just a thug.

Yes, I like this too.

There are a few examples in the book of Woundwort being very self aware yet unable to break away from his brutish nature.  He thinks it odd that Bigwig would willingly join Efrafa, but he knows he can't voice that thought because that would admit the true nature of Efrafa.  He very clearly sees what Hazel is offering for both of their warrens, but he pushes it away because he can't see how he could break from his might-is-right existence.  He's a compelling and fascinating villain.

[felice]

Entertaining enough, but not nearly as good as it could have been. Distant third after the book and the movie. I was hoping the extra runtime would let them do a more faithful adaptation of the book, but most of what they added was pretty bad, often making them seem more human and less rabbity.