# Watership Down BBC One/Netflix Adaptation



## Vince W (Dec 6, 2018)

Due to start 22 December. The cast is stellar.


----------



## farntfar (Dec 6, 2018)

Vince W said:


> The cast is stellar.



Indeed.

Looks good.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 6, 2018)

I don't like the look of it, I'm afraid. The CG rabbits have that "uncanny valley" feel to them that makes them look like lagomorphic undead. And though the backgrounds are quite nicely done, they lack the charm of the watercolours used in the 70s animation.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 6, 2018)

I couldn't agree more.
Even if I didn't utterly love the original, I still wouldn't like this. As Bryan says, the animation looks yuk.
Besides - what's the point?
Would you remake Sgt. Pepper for the same reason? No. :/


----------



## SilentRoamer (Dec 6, 2018)

I completely agree about the CGI. It's not just this but a lot of other CGI that looks poor. The problem is if you are doing your own CGI you are competing against Disneys rendering farms so you lose. CGI dates terribly as well in terms of your recognition of photo realism.

I also suspect the story will be sanitized with much of the violence removed which I feel will ultimately detract from the story. Part of my enjoyment of the original was an uncompromising stance on conflict resolution. 

And no you wouldn't remake Sgt Pepper, although someone probably will.


----------



## farntfar (Dec 6, 2018)

I'm afraid I find this oft-used argument about Sgt Peppers invalid.
Sgt Peppers is an excellent album, if nevertheless not actually perfect, and I can't see anyone improving it, but that's not the point.

Beethoven's fifth, or Holst's planet suite are also excellent pieces of music, but they have been performed hundred's of times and each one different, each adding something to and also taking something away from the previous one. I am pleased to have heard several of each.

How many different "versions" of Hamlet have you seen or read about, each praised for its "new and fresh" interpretation.

The point in this case is simply that I wouldn't expect anyone to rewrite the book, but a new performance is perfectly acceptable and I look forward to seeing it.


----------



## Mouse (Dec 7, 2018)

I'll probably watch it because I like the story but the animation is freaking awful.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 7, 2018)

Maybe they should have used real rabbits a la Tales of the Riverbank.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 7, 2018)

Stop-motion using roadkill.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 7, 2018)

HareBrain said:


> Stop-motion using roadkill.


Well, for Woundwort certainly.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 7, 2018)

I don't know. This could be very good. The animation looks top notch and that is a great cast doing the voiceover. However I will let my 7 year old son be the final adjudicator on this one for me. He has not seen the original or read the book(yet). Perfect Christmas viewing.


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 9, 2018)

I'm going to watch it.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 9, 2018)

farntfar said:


> I'm afraid I find this oft-used argument about Sgt Peppers invalid.
> Sgt Peppers is an excellent album, if nevertheless not actually perfect, and I can't see anyone improving it, but that's not the point.
> 
> Beethoven's fifth, or Holst's planet suite are also excellent pieces of music, but they have been performed hundred's of times and each one different, each adding something to and also taking something away from the previous one. I am pleased to have heard several of each.



The "invalidity argument" is often used in this circumstance.
The works of Beethoven _et al _were written to be performed on multiple occasions by orchestras.
Sgt Pepper is a one-off creation made to be played on an LP.
What struck me about the trailer for the new animation was how much it echoed the original. If the BBC want to make an animated adaption of _Watership Down_, the novel - fine. But do something different with it - or, even better, find a novel that's never been animated. Otherwise... what's the point?


----------



## farntfar (Dec 9, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> But do something different with it - or, even better, find a novel that's never been animated. Otherwise... what's the point?



OK
Well first of all the 1978 version was a film, and this is a mini series; produced by the BBC, who are far more interested in series, even if mini, than films.

But far more importantly, the 1978 version was produced in 1978.
You and I and all of the other people who have made that argument here are old enough to have seen it in 1978 or reasonably soon afterwards.

A new version is aimed at newer people.
They (The BBC and Netflix,), could, of course, show the old version, but "Hey come and see a 40 year old film  with people like Richard Briars in!" has much less selling power than "Hey, come and see a brand new mini series with the latest CGI_ (if poorly produced according to several Chrons critics)_, and featuring people you've actually heard of, like James McAvoy."

Or put another way, you and I, Stephen, ain't their target audience.

And "Do something different with it"?
You've seen the 90 second trailer. What do you want to see that's different? Rocket ships?


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 9, 2018)

Citv did a version a little while back, Gareth Gates was in it and sang Bright Eyes. It was poor, but it looked good.


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 9, 2018)

Sorry to double post, but I just wanted to add this into the mix: when I read LotR to my step kids I did a terrible impression of John Hurt for Aragorn. I used the same voice for Hazel when I read them Watership Down. Hazel will ALWAYS be John Hurt for me.


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 10, 2018)

I wouldn't have done any new version at all. It's an abdication of creative responsibility by the BBC.
There are thousands of books just as good that they could have thrown our licence fee money at. That they chose to re-make something shows what a waste of space their creative directors are. It stinks.


----------



## Pyan (Dec 10, 2018)

HB said:
			
		

> ...lagomorphic undead.....Stop-motion using roadkill...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 10, 2018)

The BBC reports positives on the story, but the CGI fails to impress: Critics welcome 'toned-down' Watership


----------



## Vince W (Dec 10, 2018)

Toned-down? What's the point then? Looks like @Stephen Palmer is quite a prophet.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 10, 2018)

Was the 1978 one really that "traumatising"? I watched it several times at the cinema, at the age of 11 -- and this was a couple of years before I dared watch Doctor Who!


----------



## Vince W (Dec 11, 2018)

No it wasn't and I was nine. I had assumed they were going to ramp things up not water it down.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Dec 11, 2018)

As I suspected the BBC can't help themselves and had to water it down and sanitize it which will probably remove a lot of the impetus and drama prevalent in the film.

I can imagine some BBC executive - "Won't somebody think of the children!"

As we should all know children cannot handle any controlled exposure to violence or conflict resolution and should be raised in a happy bubble until they become adults when they should then be thrust into the world and its horrors.....

Sorry, minor rant over.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 11, 2018)

Right. These are the same kids playing Mortal Kombat, aren't they?


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 11, 2018)

The Independent 2/5. 
"The biggest issue with the four-part BBC-Netflix collaboration, which begins on 22 December, is that nobody involved seems to have paused to consider if, commercial imperative aside, there was a good reason for remaking _Watership Down_ – already more than adequately served by Martin Rosen’s haunting 1978 movie."


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 11, 2018)

I despair that a bit of gore and the realities of animal life in the original film are so controversial.
How many kids cartoons on early morning tv have far worse violence? "Superheroes" smashing each other up etc etc. The "complaints" about the original are ridiculous.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 11, 2018)

Watership Down was a story Adams made up for his daughters. What's changed between then and now to make people think kids shouldn't be exposed to this sort of story?


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 11, 2018)

It wasn't the violence in the original that I remember as disturbing - as much as the quiet character death at the end.


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 11, 2018)

It was Art Garfuncle that set me off when I was wee


----------



## Dave (Dec 11, 2018)

farntfar said:


> But far more importantly, the 1978 version was produced in 1978.
> You and I and all of the other people who have made that argument here are old enough to have seen it in 1978 or reasonably soon afterwards.
> 
> A new version is aimed at newer people.


There is a new version of Jeff Wayne's musical _The War of the Worlds, _for the same reason, aimed at "newer people." It has Liam Neeson et al. instead of Richard Burton. I have both versions. I have nothing against Liam _ (I will find you and I will kill you)_ Neeson but nothing will ever be better than Richard Burton.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 22, 2018)

I was actually thinking it wasn't bad, enjoying it even, until the fight with the crows twenty-five minutes in. What the blinking flip was that? Utterly, utterly ridiculous, and betraying the kind of ignorance of the natural world that must have had Adams turning in the proverbial. (It wasn't in the book, needless to say.)  If they're going to spend £20M on a TV programme, can they not spend five minutes researching whether a carrion crow could grab and fly off with a full-grown rabbit? (Here's a clue: NO IT FREAKING COULDN'T.)


----------



## Scookey (Dec 22, 2018)

Don't you find it amazing how Watership Down was yet another of those successful, highly acclaimed stories that got turned down by some big publishers? Yet here we are, some 40 years later, debating not its merits but those of the latest outing of it. Even megastar J.K. Rowling could still be unknown today were it not for the chance reading by a publisher's granddaughter, having been turned down by, from memory, 27 publishers before that. 
Has to beg the question: "Do publishers actually have any idea what the public will enjoy reading?"


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Dec 23, 2018)

HareBrain said:


> Was the 1978 one really that "traumatising"? I watched it several times at the cinema, at the age of 11 -- and this was a couple of years before I dared watch Doctor Who!


I don’t know. I went to see it, my mum got lost, we didn’t get in and I had to go with my brothers to watch Battlestar Gallitica instead. It still rankles


----------



## farntfar (Dec 23, 2018)

Jo Zebedee said:


> I had to go with my brothers to watch Battlestar Gallitica instead.



That may have entirely changed the course of your future writing, and what internet groups you joined.
So I say "Bloody good job too."


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Dec 23, 2018)

I'm taking the highly unusual step of breaking my traditional Winter Writing Break From The Internet to say -
Jeez, that was even worse than I was expecting!  
The animation looked like a throwback to the '90s.
The production looked clunky, even ugly in places.
The voices didn't match the characters or the settings they were in.
The action scenes were terrible, especially the crows.
The whole thing lacked charm, beauty, vision, joy.
The music was poor, and was perfunctory at best.
I lasted about half the way through before turning the lights down and resorting to a scented candle and my Seals & Crofts greatest hits CD.

PS - the new novel is going great btw.


----------



## Jo Zebedee (Dec 23, 2018)

Thank God I plumped for a family Die Hard viewing instead.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Dec 23, 2018)

I forgot this was on and didn't plan to watch anyway. However, I do have a slightly more sensible contribution to make 

Anyone else remember the Animals of Farthing Wood? For those unaware, imagine a cartoon about cuddly animals. Their forest is being destroyed by bulldozers and they have to flee. Quite a lot of them die. In fact, I think pretty much the entire original cast and lots of newcomers end up dead. It was on the BBC in the 1990s. Rather good, from memory.

Hope they don't remake it.


----------



## Mouse (Dec 23, 2018)

Ok, so I actually enjoyed it. The animation looked bloody awful - I mean, the scenery was good but the bunnies looked like they didn't belong, like they hadn't finished rendering or something. No idea how or why that animation got signed off. But the rest of it was pretty good - I thought the story followed pretty closely to the book (crow lifting bunny aside) and the voice actors were good too. Mostly happy that Bluebell was included as he was my favourite in the book and I have a vague recollection of him not being in the film.



thaddeus6th said:


> Anyone else remember the Animals of Farthing Wood? For those unaware, imagine a cartoon about cuddly animals. Their forest is being destroyed by bulldozers and they have to flee. Quite a lot of them die. In fact, I think pretty much the entire original cast and lots of newcomers end up dead. It was on the BBC in the 1990s. Rather good, from memory.



Yes, loved it. Had the sticker book and everything (and completed it) and also read the novels (by Colin Dann). The vast majority of the main cast actually survive - Fox, Vixen, Mole, Badger, Weasel, Owl, Kestrel, Adder etc. etc. But the pheasants, hedgehogs, mice are killed off quite regularly, and several of Fox's cubs cark it.


----------



## thaddeus6th (Dec 23, 2018)

I could've sworn Fox (and Vixen) ended up snuffing it. I can't remember many of the others specifically (it was some time ago and I haven't seen it since). I remember the fox cubs having short life expectancies, as you say.


----------



## Vince W (Dec 23, 2018)

Ugh. The animation is shocking. I knew it would be poor, but I never expected that level of awful. I was so looking forward to this when I heard about it, but the fact that Netflix was going to have a hand it placed an itch in the back of my brain I couldn't scratch. Now I know why.

As others have said, it starts out fairly well, but then they start dropping bits (where's Pipkin!) I think could have made a more interesting story, adding bits that weren't there, and altering things that shouldn't have been. All this contributes to a rather disappointing experience.

Netflix should stick to streaming other people's good work and stop producing or helping to produce sub-par time wasting drek. I think I'll just cancel my subscription now before I'm party to any more of these travesties.

If you want to watch an adaptation, stick to the film.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 28, 2018)

I watched the first two episodes this evening and thoroughly enjoyed them. The animation whilst not brilliant was ok, the story kicked along nicely and the characters came to life for me anyway. It will not win any awards but it was far from awful. What I might do is watch the original again and re-read the book to see how it stacks up.


----------



## aThenian (Dec 29, 2018)

Stephen Palmer said:


> nobody involved seems to have paused to consider if, commercial imperative aside, there was a good reason for remaking _Watership Down_ – already more than adequately served by Martin Rosen’s haunting 1978 movie."



Well, if it introduces a new generation of kids to a truly fantastic book, then that's a justification. The number of wonderful books I first read in childhood after watching (not necessarily brilliant) BBC adaptations... 



thaddeus6th said:


> Anyone else remember the Animals of Farthing Wood? For those unaware, imagine a cartoon about cuddly animals.



I remember reading the books. Nice, a lot cosier than Watership Down, I'd say. I think there was a load of these kind of animal adventure stories after the success of WD - badgers in the Duncton Wood books, for example.


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 29, 2018)

The Wolves Of Time, I think it was Duncan Horwood. A Duology that was an absolutely cracking read, I'd recommend it to anyone!


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 29, 2018)

aThenian said:


> badgers in the Duncton Wood books





Narkalui said:


> The Wolves Of Time, I think it was Duncan Horwood.



Much confusion. It was _moles_ in Duncton Wood, by _William_ Horwood (who did indeed also write Wolves of Time).

For a moment, when I couldn't recall his first name, I was struck by the possibility that Duncan Horwood had written Duncton Wood, and I hadn't noticed the similarity between author and title. That combination would have been bizarre!


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 29, 2018)

It is years and years since I read WOT, pretty amazing that that is how I got Duncan rather than William!


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 29, 2018)

I've been halfway through Duncton Wood for a while, and I'm not sure I'll get further, though it had definite strengths. I might try the Wolves of Time (because wolves). Having just rewatched the 1978 animated Watership Down (and mostly loved it) think I should read that book too before long.


----------



## farntfar (Dec 29, 2018)

Well I have to agree that the animation left quite a lot to be desired, but I enjoyed this one all the same.

I can't remember the details of the book, or indeed of the film well enough to be certain which of the two (film or this one) was closer to the "true" story, but I suspect it was the film. Certainly the bit between the cat and Hazel seemed better in the film, and what on earth was the weird creation myth at the very beginning?

I thought Capaldi's voice over for Kehaar was perfect.


----------



## svalbard (Dec 29, 2018)

There was a similar type of animation for the creation myth in the original movie if I remember correctly.


----------



## HareBrain (Dec 29, 2018)

The film used an aboriginal style for the creation story (not sure if it was more Australian or Pacific Northwest, or neither), the series used shadow puppets.


----------



## hopewrites (Dec 29, 2018)

I just watched the four episodes with my son and we enjoyed it.
I agree that the animation could have done a bit better. Quite a few rabbits looked bloodied up when the shadows hit them wrong... and the cat's mouth ...

uncanny valley for sure.
But the story was delightful! I'll definitely be looking up the books at my local library once I get home.


----------



## aThenian (Dec 30, 2018)

HareBrain said:


> Much confusion. It was _moles_ in Duncton Wood, by _William_ Horwood (who did indeed also write Wolves of Time).



Ah. Wonder what the book was about badgers? Or if I just misremembered that - think badgers are solitary animals so perhaps not great subjects for an adventure story, which tends to be a kind of team thing.

Anyone read the Redwall books (mice)?


----------



## Narkalui (Dec 30, 2018)

Oh yes! Mattimeo was the best one


----------



## anno (Dec 30, 2018)

aThenian said:


> Ah. Wonder what the book was about badgers? Or if I just misremembered that - think badgers are solitary animals so perhaps not great subjects for an adventure story, which tends to be a kind of team thing.
> 
> Anyone read the Redwall books (mice)?


Badgers are social mammals with multiple families in the larger setts, they also reuse extensively making setts contemporary with Roman Britain for example...


----------



## Stephen Palmer (Jan 3, 2019)

I met William Horwood during the august bank holiday at Asylum Steampunk.
Nice bloke indeed.


----------



## Overread (Jan 3, 2019)

HareBrain said:


> I've been halfway through Duncton Wood for a while, and I'm not sure I'll get further, though it had definite strengths. I might try the Wolves of Time (because wolves). Having just rewatched the 1978 animated Watership Down (and mostly loved it) think I should read that book too before long.



See I'm almost in exactly the same position! Part way through the Moles and thinking of the Wolves. And like you its nothing in the mole story that is wrong, its just not the right time for me to push on with it it would seem. 
And I think I've got a copy of Watership Down somewhere to read too.


And yes Animals of Farthing Wood now there was a brutal tale of life in the wild! It's a crying shame that the censors seem determined to stop productions like that making it onto the screens when its clear that it doesn't harm children and, if anything, likely teaches htem more about the real world than more tame productions where death never happens. 
I remember the TV series fondly, although I think by the time they got around to one or two of the very last seasons I'd lost track of watching it (I think the last major arc was against an invasion of rats). 




I didn't see the new Watership, however having seen the animation quality in the trailer and hearing that they've toned it down and done odd things with ravens able to carry off whole rabbits (and chances are also think buzzards can fly off with whole sheep too probably)  it doesn't sound like I've missed much. A shame the story itself is sold and I can't work out why they must change things considering they had 4 parts to show the entire book's worth of content and a previous (very highly rated) film to give them almost all the ground and script and pacing work they should need.


----------



## Narkalui (Jan 3, 2019)

Does anyone else remember Mrs Frisbee and the Rats of Nimh?


----------



## Overread (Jan 3, 2019)

Narkalui said:


> Does anyone else remember Mrs Frisbee and the Rats of Nimh?



Another fantastic bit of animation and another darker tale


----------



## aThenian (Jan 4, 2019)

Narkalui said:


> Does anyone else remember Mrs Frisbee and the Rats of Nimh?



Yes! (The book - haven't seen the animation.) Absolutely cracking read. Terrific story-telling.


----------



## hopewrites (Jan 5, 2019)

We watched that movie over and over as kids. The Secret of NIMH was the name of it. My siblings loved the bird, but I liked the Rats.


----------



## Narkalui (Jan 5, 2019)

I liked the atmosphere, so mysterious with just the right amount of threat


----------



## anno (Jan 6, 2019)

“We are the rats who say.....Nimh sounds familiar...


----------



## hopewrites (Mar 7, 2019)

made it down to the library finally so I could read the book that inspired one of my favorite netflix binges.

realize that the netflix version is like that Anne with an E version in that it neglected lots of what was there in favor of TNT/HBO "drama" add ins.


I still like the netflix version, but totally understand now why those who grew up loving this piece of literature cant stomach what's been done to it. And in all fairness, if someone had done to my favorite stories what has been done to these... I'd be mad too.


----------

