• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

BBC and Netflix will produce a "Watership down" Miniseries

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oersted

Member
_89002180_watership1_rex.jpg


John Boyega, James McAvoy and Sir Ben Kingsley are among an all-star cast set to provide voices in a new adaptation of Watership Down.
Click to expand...
The four-part CGI animated mini-series will bring an original interpretation to Richard Adams' classic 1972 novel.

It tells the story of a band of rabbits in search of a new home after the destruction of their warren.

Commissioned by the BBC, it is the first blockbuster drama made as a co-production between the BBC and Netflix.
Click to expand...

The series will also feature the vocal talents of Olivia Colman, Nicholas Hoult , Miles Jupp, Freddie Fox, Anne-Marie Duff and Gemma Arterton, and will be written by Bafta-nominated Tom Bidwell.
Click to expand...

This version, the show's executive producer told the Telegraph, "will not just tone down the levels of on-screen violence to make it more appropriate for children, but give a boost to its female characters."

The series is due to air on the BBC in 2017, and worldwide, outside of the UK, on Netflix.
Click to expand...

More here

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36158310

Lock if old
 
E

Extra Sauce

Member
A new generation is about to be scarred forever.

edit: Toned down? Come on now. The violence was integral to what made the movie so powerful and enduring.
 
M

Mesoian

Member
"will not just tone down the levels of on-screen violence to make it more appropriate for children, but give a boost to its female characters."
Click to expand...

Out. Tell the fucking story. If you want to make something else, make something else.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
It honestly sounds like this entire move was made just to make a new version of the story knowing full well the notorious legacy of the original for its intense and mature content for an animated children's movie. They want to attract new audiences of course and that's the big reason but I can't help thinking this is a calculated move to try and get people to watch it curious if its anywhere near as over the top as the original. I'm not a fan though and echo the comments of several others already posted in this thread.

Its like remaking the Adventures of Mark Twain and taking out the Mysterious Stranger section because its too intense and dark for kids.
 
H

Hot Coldman

Banned
Succinct Verbosity said:
What's the legality of the BBC doing this? I thought they couldn't lock their content behind a pay wall, at least domestically.
Click to expand...

Answered your own question. BBC's done this before - Rome was a joint venture between them and HBO. Only difference here is that Netflix has a UK presence, but it'll likely be shown on the BBC over here, Netflix overseas, and probably on Netflix down the road once it's done airing on BBC.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
you can still have emotional depth without showing blood.

Are we pretending you have to have graphic violence to be emotionally resonant?

Is bambi not emotional or moving because it doesn't have blood? the fox and the hound?
 
LoveCake

LoveCake

Member
CGI no thanks.

Not sure what they mean by 'toned down' either, is that not the point, it would be like Disney releasing a new Bambi and not having the death
Bambi's mother being shot and killed
.

Just re-master and re-release the original.

Art Garfunkel - Bright Eyes
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
B1G_A1AN said:
CGI no thanks.

Not sure what they mean by 'toned down' either, is that not the point, it would be like Disney releasing a new Bambi and not having the death
Bambi's mother being shot and killed
.

Just re-master and re-release the original.

Art Garfunkel - Bright Eyes
Click to expand...

levels of on-screen violence
Click to expand...

they're not going to have the level of violence that was in the original with blood and all that. It will be left more to the imagination. I don't seem them saying they're not going to have death

And really spoiling bambi? His mom dies. Everybody knows this and people who don't aren't reading GAF
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
“It’s grown this reputation for being scarring and horrific and brutal, and actually that’s not what the essence of the story is

“While we won’t shy away from the darkness in the book, visually it won’t be as brutal and scarring.

“The idea is to bring it to a wider family audience. While Watership Down is never going to be for young children, it will be for the whole family to watch together.”
Click to expand...

from the telegraph article.

I don't see how having the image on the right or the gif earlier is vital to the story

watership_copy-large_trans++eo_i_u9APj8RuoebjoAHt0k9u7HhRJvuo-ZLenGRumA.jpg
 
T

tcrunch

Member
B1G_A1AN said:
Not sure what they mean by 'toned down' either, is that not the point, it would be like Disney releasing a new Bambi and not having the death
Bambi's mother being shot and killed
.
Click to expand...

Just pointing out the movie you have spoiler tagged here is 74 years old.
 
C

Chariot

Member
But why shy away from the blood and visual brutality? Bloody children can take it, those little wankers aren't going to break down from a few slaughtered bunnies after all the shite they watch on the telly anyways.
 
X

xptoxyz

Member
I should really get around to reading this and maybe watching the movie.

Remember watching part of the Canadian TV series, violence was definitely not to the level of those film gifs. No idea how it compares to the source material/film in terms of story.
 
A

Archaix

Drunky McMurder
tcrunch said:
Just pointing out the movie you have spoiler tagged here is 74 years old.
Click to expand...



Good thing we stopped producing children as a species 65 years ago, so it's completely inconceivable that anybody since could have been born and not seen it.


(I don't actually care about spoilers for children's movies, I just think the age of a story making a difference is funny)
 
R

Ridley327

Member
There are good intentions behind the idea of making female characters more prominent, but I feel like they're not realizing that they're heaping on an anthropomorphic element to a story where it doesn't exist. Not every talking animal story needs a human touch, if you understand what I'm getting at.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Ridley327 said:
There are good intentions behind the idea of making female characters more prominent, but I feel like they're not realizing that they're heaping on an anthropomorphic element to a story where it doesn't exist. Not every talking animal story needs a human touch, if you understand what I'm getting at.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about Watership Down?

Anthropmorphism is like its defining feature. They rabbits have language, culture, myths, etc. Its an epic told through rabbits instead of humans.
 
B

Brannon

Member
If they make it too violent, they scar the children. (Watership Down)

If they make it too family friendly, Rule 34. (Zootopia)

Are they playing the most dangerous game? (Bambi's mom dies and also King Kong)
 
LoveCake

LoveCake

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
they're not going to have the level of violence that was in the original with blood and all that. It will be left more to the imagination. I don't seem them saying they're not going to have death
Click to expand...

That was the point of the scene though, the original isn't that violent now though, if it was apparently ok for children back then when regulation was more strict, why is it not acceptable now, that was the point I was raising.

tcrunch said:
Just pointing out the movie you have spoiler tagged here is 74 years old.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, I didn't think I could win either way though.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
B1G_A1AN said:
That was the point of the scene though, the original isn't that violent now though, if it was apparently ok for children back then when regulation was more strict, why is it not acceptable now, that was the point I was raising.
Click to expand...

There are multiple quotes from ratings agencies that have said they were wrong to give it the rating it got (the US didn't even have pg-13 back then)

Regulations we're not more strict back then. They were more lax
 
B

Bornstellar

Member
I'm down for wanton rabbit violence.

EDIT:
This version, the show's executive producer told the Telegraph, "will not just tone down the levels of on-screen violence to make it more appropriate for children, but give a boost to its female characters."
Click to expand...
Aaaaaand nm.
 
R

Ridley327

Member
NYCmetsfan said:
Are you talking about Watership Down?

Anthropmorphism is like its defining feature. They rabbits have language, culture, myths, etc. Its an epic told through rabbits instead of humans.
Click to expand...

It still adheres to a lot of the actual biological behavior of rabbits, though, and seeing that comment about beefing up female roles seems strange in the face of that, where does are pretty much nothing but baby dispensers in real life. That's not even a knock or anything: that's just how their nature is.
 
D

Dreams-Visions

Member
This version, the show's executive producer told the Telegraph, "will not just tone down the levels of on-screen violence to make it more appropriate for children, but give a boost to its female characters."
Click to expand...

Felt like a bad idea because the original is certainly stands along as an excellent adaptation. Reducing the violence just takes me from skeptical to in the "no" camp. Who the fuck asked for a violence-free version of Watership Down in the first goddamn place?
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Ridley327 said:
It still adheres to a lot of the actual biological behavior of rabbits, though, and seeing that comment about beefing up female roles seems strange in the face of that, where does are pretty much nothing but baby dispensers in real life. That's not even a knock or anything: that's just how their nature is.
Click to expand...

rabbits with language, myths and complex culture is good but beefing up women is too unrealistic they should be required to just be baby dispensers?

this is completely nonsensical
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom