Watership Down BBC One/Netflix Adaptation

[Vince W]

Due to start 22 December. The cast is stellar.

 

[farntfar]

The cast is stellar.

Indeed.

Looks good.

 

[HareBrain]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Vince W]

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

 

[HareBrain]

Stop-motion using roadkill.

 

[Vince W]

Stop-motion using roadkill.

Well, for Woundwort certainly.

 

[svalbard]

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]

I'm going to watch it.

 

[Stephen Palmer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Brian G Turner]

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

 

[Vince W]

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