In the book it’s actually both claims that the original movie and remake have on the need for Does, They needed them because they would need future generations and yeah they needed them because their claws were built to create nests. Bucks legitimately don’t have the claws for digging they’re for fighting.
Riley Keefer it would have been interesting tho if they added both reasons, like first they said they need to carry on their future generations so they need does. But that idea was ignored but later when they try and dig their nest they realize they really do need them. I dunno just thought since you mentioned the book had both it would have been interesting to seen both
Exactly. While they needed to add both reasons, the first, showing them trying to dig is true. Does are built for digging more the bucks. I raise rabbits and I never put my does in a yard tracker because they will dig out while my bucks never do. Also, does are alot more territorial with other does.
I’m pretty sure that’s because the rabbits in the remake are always standing tall kinda like a jackrabbit. Actual rabbits do a kind of hop-then-sit thing and are bunched up as opposed to standing.
As a traditional animator who refuses to give up her paper and pencils (and paints), I appreciate you recognizing how just making something CGI doesn't improve it. The original is one of the best animated films ever made. In re-watching it, I was stunned at the focus on all the GORGEOUS watercolor backgrounds and the intense atmosphere they create.
I agree with you so much. I used to study in 2D animatiom exactly for these reasons. The feels and scents of paper and pencils in your hands, the flow of lines creating the scene,... even CGI will never recreate such emotions, such connections with traditional touch.
@@lyneismydogsnamenow I genuinely despise you elitists who shit all over a medium simply because you personally do not enjoy it, nor understand the depth and breadth of skill it takes to craft. You are no different from people who mock fantasy novelists because genera fiction is 'easy'. Take up a tablet. Try and make a ball bounce using 3d modeling and animation. Do it in any style you like, just make it good. That's it. No background. No character. One ball. Of any kind. Bouncing off the ground. Go ahead. Try.
I don't really see showing Woundwort's sad backstory as a problem. It doesn't justify his actions or make us feel sympathy for him. It simply explains why he is the way he is.
The Woundwort in the Tv series has a better one. It actually shows why he wants to be in control and hates men The new one didn’t make sense to me. If he warned everyone about the Fox they would still be alive,if he ran away from the warren then the rest would be alive. The only reason he hates humans because they made him a “Hutch rabbit”
Yeah, but you can do this without showing this, like take Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. We know that he's he villain of the story and just by the way he shows no mercy and brutally kills the main character Willard's team mates and forced to watch what Kurtz does, shows that hate he have for him but while at this time Kurtz monologues on the horrors of war showing why he does what he does, despite it not being justified for what he's just doing to Willard, which is why Willard decides in the end that Kurtz must die. The concept of the villain is that a villain must be shown what they are and what they do here. Martin Scorsese is responsible for one of my favorite quotes, "Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's not.", which basically means what you choose to not show is as important as what you do. And since the villain is someone who is not only ruthless, but shows a very fatal belief system, think a better way to go was to maybe during one of his moments where he has the character at his paws or is giving a speech to his his followers this is where all the moments of learning who the character is should be, just as long as they don't overdo it. but get into enough, just like Colonel Kurtz.
In the book Woundwort's family was killed by man not a fox and it helped play into the bigger theme of man's destruction of everything around it and it also tells how he set up the warren and shows the psychological side of the messed up reality he created without ever making you think he would have a redemption arc, even though he has what you would call a tragic backstory the author leaves no room for sympathy or redemption and then when you're done with the story he seems to have be a little off even before his family dies and it's strongly hinted that he isn't actually killed. They never find a body and they straight up say that they think he's out there still because he's not the kind to die but he won't(probably) come back because he knows he can't win.
Yup thats exactly right. A lot of media does this successfully, humanizing a villain but NOT justifying their actions. You dont have to downplay the villainy or anything like that, in fact its great writing if they manage to draw sympathy for an absolutely irredeemable character because it makes the audience feel conflicted or go through a rollercoaster of motions. Complex characters are good and are way more interesting that one-note villains.
I liked that they added Woundort's backstory as a kind of nod to the book, but they kind of missed the point of it's existence. Here's the full story: He used to live alone with his mother, father, and siblings near a house with a vegetable garden, and his father would occasionally raid it to get Flayrah for his family. Until one day the man living in this house decides he's had enough. He kills Woundwort's father and then goes for the rest of the family. The mother tries to escape with her kits, but Woundwort is the only one able to keep up. Later a weasel comes and kills his mother right in front of him. A little while later a human comes and raises him, in the safety of a house, far from any danger (sound familiar?) But he still grew up very wild and eventually escaped. Personally, I think this backstory wasn't there to make us feel for Woundwort, but more so to show his filosophy. It's true that he was taking a lot of rabbits' freedom from them, but he was also keeping them safe. His trauma, combined with his hunger for power, drove him into believing he was doing the right thing. Woundwort was mad, and it was this madness that drove him to his (possible) death. Thank you for listening to me rambling on about fictional rabbits.
@@deim1nk419 damn this was back when I was taking commenting seriously. I made sure to get to the videos early and leave a funny or witty comment to make sure people saw me. They did. I got a lot of likes on a lot of different videos. Sadly, my Reign of Terror has ended since then :(
The death of Violet in the 1978 version bothers the hell out of me because in the book, it was incredibly important that none of the rabbits died on their journey, which is what gave them such high confidence that they could achieve things like breaking the rabbits out of the barn and infiltrating Effrafa because they felt that fate was on their side.
Woundwort's backstory exists because he's supposed to be an extremist who originally had a point. His original goal to protect others is admirable but then he twists it into an authoritarian regime and it all goes downhill from there. Without it, he's just a two-note character. Same reason he, in the book, briefly considers Hazel's offer.
Ye. The final showdown was well executed. If they had added any flashbacks like Steve here suggested it would have ruined it. I thought showing the fox attack in the beginning of the episode was just enough information we needed. The whole thing felt like it was Woundworts story in the end, for me.
Even though he was a “two note” character, as you describe, he was still far more memorable because of how evil and cruel and ruthless he was in the original film. The remake tried to humanize him too much and that took away from the mystery of the character l. He didn’t need a backstory. What made him so scary in the original was because we didn’t know what turned him so evil, and to us he was just cruel for no reason. The remake tried to make the viewers sympathetic and understanding of Woundwort and that just ruins the character imo. We’re supposed to fear woundwort, not feel sorry for him
I can STILL hear the ghost rabbits... "WE COULDN'T GET OUT." "A FUNNY SOUND, A HISSING, THEN THE AIR TURNED SOUR" "DEAD BODIES BLOCKED THE ESCAPES" All of these lines and their delivery are burned into my memory.
theinternalkiller This traumatized me as a five year old, and I have a fear of rabbits to this day two decades later. Also get flashbacks, and want to cry at any clip I see of it.
As to the "bucks don't dig" - this is used in the novel to show how forward thinking Hazel's warren is. It's established practice that bucks will usually only dig a short scrape for shelter, but actual burrows are dug by the does when they are having kittens. So Blackberry (always the clever one) reasons that they need to do things differently - if they're going to make a go of living on Watership Down they'll have to try new things. The bucks come together to dig the Honeycomb, with the idea of basing some of the design on Cowslip's great warren. And it's a great success - they dig out the warren themselves. (Strawberry gets a lot of the credit as helping to design the warren). It's only after they've finished the whole warren that they realise they need does, to continue the warren after they've gone.
@@north-roadcaveman5818 Been awhile, but I remember reading it maybe 40 years ago and Strawberry was a male and they had no does when they reached their down. That is why they needed to get does.
lucky luke1983 they are written by different people, the fact that in both of them they have to leave because of humans building where they live always made me think they were set in the same place as a child
@@thunderchild1083 well that makes. You something funny when the first farthing wood book was release in 1979 people said it was a water ship down ripoff then then the 1999 tv series came out that was a ripoff of farthing wood 1993 series. How ironic.
I think the reason they said that bucks “can’t” dig is because in the original book, Bigwig (I think; it may have been one of the others) says that digging is “for does”. Then Adams side notes later that bucks only scrape when they need to, while does do a lot of the digging for their kits. So, they didn’t make it up, they just used it as an excuse so they didn’t have to mention “reproduction” in the movie. So, still a dumb reason 😂
Well yes but Bigwig mentions that if they won't get any females they are going to start fighting, mostly for dominance which could point out the reproduction
real rabbits, females do most of the digging. its not that males cant... its just that females do it most of the time & more extensively. i dont understand why they have to use that reason. the major point the group would want females is to reproduce. period.
"Kehaar is based on a soldier from the Norwegian Resistance during World War II." Thus the accent. He's based on a soldier that Richard Adams knew during WWII.
They ruined bigwig my favorite character. Bigwig stood up for hazel, it was bigwig whose confidence in hazel was a major factor that influenced others to join him to start the journey
@@yvonnet6399 yes, but in the book and original movie, he was supportive from the start. Bigwig only had an issue with Hazel when they settled down, because Bigwig wanted to be warren leader. But even then, he realized Hazel would be the better leader. The fact that Bigwig tells General Woundwart that he's holding down the warren because his leader told him to, is one of the most defining moments. He didn't need to be an ass.
@@BruggleStar I never got the impression Bigwig openly wanted to be Chief Rabbit from the book or movie. Perhaps early on he was a bit resentful for taking orders from yearlings (Hazel and Blackberry primarily) and there was the open question going into the common poised by some of the other rabbits of whether Bigwig or Hazel was the leader but after leaving Cowslip's warren it's specifically written there was no more questioning of Hazel's authority. After the raid on Nuthanger farm and everyone believes Hazel to be dead Holly is whom the other rabbits ask to become Chief Rabbit.
In real rabbit warrens does are the ones who dig. A buck can dig a hole but doesn't have the brain power/instincts to create a Warren. Bucks can't even dig a tunnel. The main reason for a buck to dig is when it's fighting. When two bucks fight they will stop and dig with their tails up, the digging is a show of strength in attempt to intimidate the other buck. They also will dig a small hole and overturn the dirt during hot weather to lay in and cool off.
Because watership down is of course first and foremost an accurate depiction of wild rabbit behaviour. Rabbits in the wild would also rescue hutch rabbits, release a dog to fight a rival warren, run a warren as a police state, chase down deserters etc etc
@@disaidra He was talking shit about how the reason to have females was bs because bucks can dig. They can't. They do not dig in to book, original, or remake and they don't dig in real life. I was correcting him. And yeah this obviously isn't realistic but it tries to have some shit realistic and bucks not digging is one of those things.
Watership down is actually very concerned about creating a world how rabbits would see it. It is also very specific about Cowlip's warren and Efrara being "perverted" due to human influence. (In Efrafra's case because Woodworth got crazy due to his contact with humans) and that Watership down is different due to Hazel being a particularly visionary leader who does a lot of things which are unusual for a rabbit. Basically there is always a "this is how a proper rabbit would behave" baseline running through it.
I've only read the book once, so I might be mis-remembering, but the 'bucks don't dig' and the 'Woundwort backstory' are part of the original novel. The digging thing isn't super important and more used as a extra reason why they need does, so that's probably why it's dropped from the 78 film. As to Woundwort, in the book, his mother is killed and, I think, he's taken in by a human. In the book it's used to explain why Effrafra is as messed up as it is. Woundwort has the place on lockdown so they don't get found. The 78 film probably gets rid of it for time and so that they don't risk softening Woundwort. The remake might have planned to have a longer sequence that was closer to the book, but cut it in the end. In the remake, Woundwort makes moves on Clover is because 'they're both hutch rabbits' even though we never see him being a hutch rabbit.
Yes in the book his father was killed by a farmer because they lived near a cabbage patch. His mother and him along with his siblings ran away. But his siblings didn't make it and get left behind. Only woundwart made it. But they get stopped by a fox who then kills his mother and full leaves woundwort alone. He's taken in by a school master who keeps him on a cage, but there is also a cat in the house. So it terrorizes woundwart until he finally escapes after months of think. Finding the soon to be his Warren later and fighting his way in, then Killing the chief and takng his place. The whole Warren was meant to be hidden, because he is still scared of man, and that's his biggest fear. Also yes males don't usually dig, hares or some hares live above ground and dig small holes to sleep in. But females do dig, to make dens for they're kittens (baby bunnies).
You are correct. Both things were present in the book, but the 2018 remake simply handled these factors poorly. Despite some of its shortcomings, the 1978 version did at least streamline the story well enough to keep key elements of the book and its overall theme in tact imo. It was just a much better adaptation as far as I'm concerned, though I will not fault anyone who enjoys the 2018 version more. Adaptations like these are very subjective and largely boil down to opinion, especially if someone has or hasn't read the book.
Mostly yes. The book states that normally it's a Doe who digs but a Buck is capable of digging if he wants. Since they were all male when the started up the new warden, they all pitched in to dig.
Too bad the 2018 animation had the 2019 ‘Lion King’ effect. The character models look realistic enough, but the original film had such flair and the lead characters looked much more like real rabbits compared to 2018’s characters
Realistic..how? They have unnatural body shapes nothing like that of real rabbits Such as their back legs being too long and their movements are also nothing like rabbits Rabbits actually hop, these guys..like..limp
@@edelweissbunny5556 do you are have stupid? The rabbits that YOU would see are all fat, and also, for the remake and the original movie, they're not rabbits, they're hares.
They would probably turn the Todd female to serve as a love interest for Rowf, make all the human characters sympathetic by giving them 'tragic' backstories, have Snitter get cheerfully patched up and adopted by the end and animate the whole thing in CGI from 2001.
7:40 That is actually a freaking irl fact that wasn’t just put in there for plot convenience. Female rabbits are normally the ones who dig the burrows because males are crap at it.
@@matthewfranks2198 take that up with mother nature man, and it does, gender dimorphism in nature goes deeper than brighter and darker colors and what they got between their legs. They're just prone to digging, and being better at it. its instinct.
One of my favourite books....never watched the movies though. Disappointing to hear they changed basic points, such as taking Fiver's sixth sense about his brother away. Hazel was always "reluctant hero-leader" in the book. Bigwig was the tank who kept order under Hazel. Kehaar talks normally? They don't speak the same language. Why did they ruin the characters? Also notice how they are never sitting, but always have their hindquarters up? Rabbits lollop and sit, run and sit, hop and sit. These guys look more like dogs with their backs always up. Come to think of it, they look like kangaroos!
7:50 But in real life female Rabbits as better diggers than male rabbits. There is a real citation to a study that shows that female rabbit dig longer and more consistently and more elaborately than males. Don't ask me why that is but they do.
strayiggyTV Maybe because female rabbits adapt to make dens for their offspring in order to support more rabbits in a space. I honestly don’t know, it’s just an educated guess.
strayiggyTV Interesting, but I’m pretty sure a bunch of male rabbits can dig a warren well enough without any does. They would need does if they wanted future generations to live in their warren, though.
@@Cloud_Strife1997 wtf does that mean and the story general is flawed the characters are flat and it is rushed in some parts farthing wood has better characters and is better paced this series was about as needed as the 1999 series which is basicly fathwood only with a higher animation budget.
I agree with most of your points. But it looks like you forgot watership down was a book before it was a movie. I don't think this was ment to be a remake of the 1978 movie, but an adaptation of the book. I enjoyed it. I'm probably not watching it again, but it was alright. I think the worse for me was the character designs. I could only tell most characters apart from their voices. They all kinda look alike in most scenes.
Catarina Neto the only rabbit I could tell apart from the other rabbits were clover, fiver, bigwig, blue berry, and woundwort.... the rest all look the same to me lol
I thought it always a bit too difficult to tell all the rabbits apart. The original and the remake. Of course Bigwig has hair and he's very large so it's obvious. Hazel was thin and small with Fiber normally pretty close by. But most of the other rabbits are brown/grey but don't have a distinguishing personality or a lot of lines to tell them apart
Wouldn't it be better to compare both adaptations to the original novel rather than against each other? The novel does cover the male rabbits needing females to dig burrows because males only have the drive to dig scrapes to rest in. Females dig dens to raise their kits in. The novel also covers Woundwart's backstory to show why he's so cautious of being found by humans. This is like comparing Netflix's Mowgli to Disney's Junglebook. Of course they're not going to match 100% They're trying to cover different aspects of the novel. Mind you, the original movie is more loyal to the book when it comes to characterization and plot points.
Yeeah that's why I'm unsubscribing this channel. Netflix series is its own adaptation of the book, not a remake of 70's animated movie. Plus he is drasticaly missing some points that WERE explained clearly in the movies (not only in this video but also on his Felidae review). Jeez I expected an entertaining channel about animated movies yet I have another reviever that is not doing their research correctly and complains about things just because he's missing the point.
I agree. I still enjoy this because I like the comparisons but I feel like it is unfair to act like the remake is wrong for being faithful to the book in certain ways. Most of the points weren’t like that though and just hinged on what he thought worked better so I wish he’d focus more on that next time.
Ok people THIS IS ABOUT MOVIES!!! Not books he's comparing the movies. You're so obsessed with the damn book and not even realizing what this is about it's about the movies he probably knows there's a book. It's just not the topic of the video. So you're unsubscribing bc you're mad he didn't mention one little thing seriously? You people get on my nerves
Go be stupid on your own comment. People are just rightly pointing out that he's mistaken in thinking that the new series is a remake of the movie instead of a retelling of the original novel.@@user-vr8ve6rt9c
About the “Bucks can’t dig, we need does”: both movies are correct with the book. They need does to dig because does have the instincts to dig for their kittens
I can't help but wonder if you've ever actually read the book. A lot of the things you're perplexed by in the remake are actually misguided attempts to include things from the book. Like, the reason a rabbit would make a shitty joke in the middle of a suspenseful scene is because in the book, he was established as having gone a little mad in the destruction of their home warren, and was constantly making silly jokes.
And Bluebell's jokes were something that captain Holly appreciated because it kept him grounded, reminding him that there were still fun things despite the trauma they went through
They have de-brutalized the doom of old Warren. In the book and original movie the warren was destroyed by locking all holes and poisoned rabbits with gas. It was cruel, brutal, something so unbelievable it never happened before, reminding gas chambers in German death camps. They were obsessively digging in panic, fighting with each other for another breath, choking with blood and suffocating, creating the pile of twisted dead bodies in corners (gas chambers again). It suppose to be shocking and it was in the original movie. In BBC series it was so flattened... The builders just came, started to dig and destroyed the warren to build houses... I mean, tragic but... Meh
This scene felt more like a nightmare about Cowslip's warren than a first hand description of the destruction of Sandelford. It was eerie and unsettling when it should have been the most devastating cataclysmic moment in the entire story. Zorn!
@@gavinbunting7354 It was artistical desicion and a pretty strong one. because it was HORROR in the litteral sense. And sorry the fking Remake Toned it way to down - like OP said "Meh".
Bluebell said he had to claw through bodies and was digging at times to escape, dazed and confused by the gas. He saw a boy hunting down rabbits and spitting them on a stick. Could you imagine humans being hunted and their dead bodies mutilated by a species who didn't care? Maybe we're inured or insulated from it, but Nature is a hard Mother and these animals live stark lives. Perhaps part of the book was to remind us of Man's Inhumanity to Man and shake us up to what happens in the world.
@@ginnyjollykidd Wait you mean Holly. Nobody else got out. And even if they did they would NEVER be able to track Hazel and the gang alone through so many trials. Holly wasn't Captain of the Owsla for nothing. This rabbit was smart and strong. ... Bluebell psshhh really no.. but great gawds thats from the book I havent read it in so long. Adds a whole new level of horror. Im pretty sure you mean Holly though.
Yeah the fact it came out basically in 2019 (sssssuuuuper late in December 2018) there's really no excuse for it being THIS bad. 10 years ago? Sure we could probably excuse it but I've seen better fan made CGI vids done for art school and such that DID come out nearly 10 years ago. :/
I think in the end when you asked about the crappy joke it was more showing how they didn't want their story teller to panic. In real live when rabbits panic they can die very easily from just a small panic. The idea of them calming him down with a joke is kind of heartwarming.
The remake was also the first version I saw I've yet to see the original but I do think they did a good job telling the story on the remake. It gave me mixed emotions and the only thing I didn't like is how stiff the characters' movements are. They don't seem to stretch out much or show how flexible rabbits are in real life. It did ruin a lot but I think showing more and exploring more character arcs made it worth the watch. And as for changing out the brotherly bond vs the romantic bond could have made people upset either way. If they hadn't changed it and made the brotherly bond come back it would have been still just as bad. The idea of clover coming to his rescue and saying she doesn't want to be a part from him again makes it really obvious about how hutch rabbits don't actually have any survival instincts or smarts to show how she's supposed to accept death. She's very naive and as it should be. (Because pets shouldn't be released). And as for hazel being blan and dumb i feel it helps us really love him that much more. In the remake he goes on to explain his struggles with finding out why he should be a leader and questions his worth in the group but eventually becomes an amazing leader and his friends stop worrying about him as a leader. The idea of everything changing made the remake feel adventurous and showed how fast you can mature when you really need to.
I still haven't checked out the remake since I'm still mentally scarred from seeing the original when I was five, haha. I do have to say, the style of the remake makes me a bit uncomfortable. There is something... weird about it. It reminds me of those old, awful computer animations that have this realistic skin slapped on top of them. And it disturbs me greatly.
Also, regarding the weird explanation for needing to get the does: " Female rabbits can be more territorial than males and like to dig holes as this is their traditional role in the wild." So in the wild, female rabbits are actually the ones that dig the holes. But it still sounds kinda bizarre to just throw it in since having the females to be able to breed sounds much more believable.
@@emmimoilanen6701 When I heard that part of the remake I was baffled as to why they changed it, but that does make a bit more sense. But still, that makes it a matter of 'female rabbits are more naturally inclined to dig' than 'female rabbits are the only ones capable of digging'. The bucks were even digging when the scene started! They could have dug out the new warren if they had to, but they can't reproduce without does. It comes across as a trivial thing to bring up when there's a far more pressing concern to address. The only reason I can think they made that the reason was to seem less sexist by giving the female rabbits a reason to be there other than as baby makers. But that fell flat when the only thing that came to my mind was a bunch of grown men from the 50's standing around saying 'we need women because men can't cook or clean!'. Yes you can, you've just never had to and don't want to because society deems that as 'women's work'. To me it comes across as more sexist than needing does to, you know, reproduce. Something they actually cannot physically do without does. I bet that BBC put that there with good intentions, but I don't think they thought them all the way through.
Regarding the childhood trauma, I know where you're coming from, and I found the remake easier to watch. The nightmare inducing scene of the destruction of the home warren doesn't terrorize so much. There is far less blood and of rabbits ripping each other apart. To the worse or betterment of the story I couldn't really say.
Hey Steve would you mind doing a review on this movie called 9? It’s a little creepy animated movie that I recommend Edit: God! Over 250 likes? Thanks guys (and gals as well)
It was a bit, they needed to vary the pacing of the keyframes more but maybe they were rushed by a deadline or a short time frame. If they really would have gotten more realistic they could have motion captured some actual rabbits running around.
07:40 - Guess you never read the book? That's also a biological fact. Bucks don't dig, they protect the warren and fight other bucks. In the book and the animated show it is Hazel who talks the others into actually trying to work, but that's also why they are motivated to rescue the does. Blackberry was the only female with them in the cartoon, and she couldn't dig it out alone.
Google disagrees though. It is unlikely they will do it but they still can do it. Bucks do dig but just not to the same degree or for the same reasons.
OMG ikr! They don't even move like rabbits! They move like mutations of rabbits, look at the legs! Their way longer then the front legs, that's not how rabbits look or move!
i couldnt put into words what was so offputting about the visual style of the remake, and this is exactly why. the OG animation had animators that obviously understood rabbit anatomy.
Something i always liked about the original was how Woundwart looked. He was this hulking, bulky monster of a rabbit that had this genuine menace that came from his design, to the point where he's barely even a rabbit anymore. Meanwhile in the remake he's indistinguishable from any other character save for some scars on his ears and his eye, he doesn't look intimidating or monsterous, which massively detracts from how intimidating he's meant to be.
You really hit on something here. The remake tries to look more realistic, possibly a reflexive reaction to using CGI. As a result, the rabbits are all pretty samey-looking. But the original had a much more stylised approach to the art so all the major characters are clearly distinguishable.
I like the new Woundwort's design because he looks like he could be fast as well as strong. The original Woundwort looked like he could win a fight through brute strength alone. The novel actually emphasises that he "won almost every fight of his life by using his weight". However, raw strength isn't the most effective combat strategy and if Woundwort's weight and sheer aggression won't get the job done, he doesn't have much else going for him. This Woundwort looks like he could dart around and outflank an opponent by using speed. He gives off the vibe of a fighter who uses skill instead of just relying on being bigger than other rabbits. His size certainly helps but agility is often more important than power because it's always advantageous to hit your opponent before they hit you. This also helps with the idea that Woundwort might have survived his fight with the dog. Granted, his chances are very slim and Woundwort was fully aware of that but by using speed instead of just strength, he could get under its guard. It's mentioned in the book that the dog was injured when it limped back to the farm, so Woundwort clearly put up a hell of a fight, despite already being exhausted. And his body was never found.
I dont know why so many people expect the BBC version to take things from the '78 version when the newer one was not using the old film as source material... of course they're going to do things differently because the source material is the book itself. The old film was more successful visually but imo I think the newer one captured the book better. When reading the book I honestly didn't get the same "creepy" vibes the '78 film induces, and I think the 2018 version captures the vibe of the book a bit better. But to each his own.
Ok I’ve noticed a lot of comments on here referring to how the book is better, and how the BBC remake is superior as it made lots of references to the book that I missed, such as the Does being able to dig better than the Bucks. Full disclosure, I have not read the book, and perhaps I should have made that clear in the video, but here’s my response: 1) This review was purely to compare the two films to one another, and that’s it. I never really get it when people look at the book as a direct form of entertainment comparison. A book is a completely different medium and offers the individual a completely different experience to watching something on a screen. It’s like saying that playing a board game is much better than playing a video game, when in fact they’re two different things. By all means you can state how the book handled things different, such as story elements and characters, but you can’t compare they’re entertainment quality. 2) People are saying that if I had read the book then I would fully understand why the BBC remake mentioned such seemingly pointless things, such as the Bucks not being able to dig as good as the Does. This is apparently fully explained in the book. Well here’s the thing.. the book may have explained better as to why the Does are the better diggers, but the BBC remake did not, it simply threw it in as a random line of dialogue with no context surrounding it. Therefore it is assuming that I must have already read the book, so don’t need it fully explained to me. That’s bad writing, I should not have to go seeking additional source material in order to understand what’s going on, it should all be fully explained in the film itself. If one of the rabbits in the remake just added a bit of extra dialogue such as “we never learnt how to dig as in our old warren it was the Does that dug out the tunnels” then fine, but it didn’t. 3) I hope you are all having a wonderful day. :)
You shouldn't be comparing them to begin with when they arent remakes, they're VERY DIFFERENT adaptations of the same source material. Seriously like trying to compare Taming of the Shrew with "10 things I hate about you:". Same source material, similar characters, very different film.
It was a great video. Idk why people always throw in how the book is this and that. The books usually aren't under the same time constraints and can be as long as need. They are a different medium like you said and should be treated as such. I'm subbing
no, bad writing would be exactly what you just typed. if they had to explicitly state that they never learned how to dig for you to understand that does are the diggers, then the problem was you. good writing is "show, don't tell". the remake did quite enough to get the point across; i hadnt read the book when i watched it either but i wasnt going to assume i knew better than the writers about animal behavior based on nothing whatsoever.
I liked they added the romance to the remake, but you are right about Hazel and his brother’s relationship should be more focused on. Hazel and Clover could be on the side.
The animation was.... *ok* but I feel like BBC used up all the money they could’ve used to make the animation better, on paying the voice actors. If BBC chose some good voice actors that would work for a low price, than I think the animation might’ve been *way better*
7:59 they do expand on it. He later is yelling at one of his generals for being afraid. In the flashback he was afraid of the fox and failed to warn his family. It gives a reason to why he stresses the need to not be afraid. At the very end as the dog is about to kill him he tells himself that he isn’t afraid.
Thank you for saying that, this is how I had seen that as well. The funny thing is if I remember right, I think that bit got lifted from the TV show that what made a while back. If you want Watership Down where it gets washed out and drags on way to far (It should had ended at season 2 as everything about season 3 was just pointless.
I actually really enjoyed the remake and I want to watch it again. The animation was uncanny in places, like when the rabbits hop and their facial expressions but it's not that horrid...people are overreacting a lot. I do agree the whole Clover and Hazel thing drove me NUTS. Like why? What's the point? They should have made more time for Fivver...I felt like he barely got any screen time. The same with general wound wort (probably spelt their names wrong but oh well)
Same! I loved Fivver and wished there was some more character for him! And with the animation... if a story is a good story, I forgive the animation quality
@@pbpeanut1144 My thoughts exactly- they replaced one of the key scenes for Fivver with Clover which was god awful. I do not understand why they did that. But yeah that's my mindset too. If the story is good enough I can forgive the animation. Not to mention I doubt the budget for this was that big. People shouldn't be expecting Disney quality.
It kinda annoyed me that clover and hazel didn’t have kids in the end. I liked the way how clover was more important and wasn’t as pointless as she was in the original, but I think hazels brother should have gone with her. I liked it better when he went.
Watership Down will always have a special place in my heart. I saw the original on TV as an evening special broadcast. I was so moved I cried, my mom explained to me that there was a book, and we spent several weekends scouring used bookstores till we found a very nice used copy that I hold dear to this day. This seems to me to be one of those things that really didn't need a remake unless they were really going for broke to do a perfect book translation....
Ooof. You gotta read the book. Explains so much stuff so much better. The clover thing is so irritating. Hazel never even ended up with her. Romance never comes into play, it's all about mating and breeding. And Fiver has a vision that leads him to Hazel. And there's way too much wrong with how they do everything with kehaar. Why can't movies ever just follow the source material... Lol. The author doesn't even like the original cartoon movie. I wonder what he thinks of the remake...
Side note: Kehaar's foreign accent was there to emphasize that he came from far away, that he shouldn't have been in the area in the first place if not for the fact he got injured during migration
Ryuzaki Ookami at this point i dont think its supposed to be a down to the details remake its more like a easier to understand, modern, morw child appealing way of telling a classic
Want to point out real quickly that the joke bluebell made 'a hoptomist' - while validly not to your taste - is accurate characterization taken from the book. In the book bluebell actually arrives with holly, and holly credits his constant bad puns as the only reason he didn't lose himself to despair while tracking the others. Blackberry also references bluebell's tendency to crack jokes during tense or frightening moments in the second episode, and actively discourages him from making one shortly after. Some people respond to fear with humor as a coping mechanism and this is very much what bluebells deal is.
"Males tend to be more easy going and relaxed while females are usually "the boss" of any household. In the wild, rabbits pair up into couples with the female digging their burrow and the male defending her and the burrow against intruders."
The point being, that male rabbits are still entirely capable of digging and this is a poor reason to give for finding females. Continuing the perpetuation of your kind, thus not rendering all your efforts for naught, is a much better motive for them to find females. Eradicating this natural and healthy motive from the narrative, especially when this was the only motive presented in both the original animation *and* the book, is sort of the BBC's MO. It's obviously motivated, not by a desire to convey realism (much less to remain true to the source material) but to promote a certain ideological/cultural viewpoint. Everything must be sterilised and castrated, everything must be denatured, in order to produce generations of mewling weaklings, who cry over animated blood.
@@mooseolini1447 Your kinda right, Some animals can be better diggers then others. The females are better diggers cuz the females dig for there baby's. The males don't really help to dig. In real life out in the wild sometimes the males or bucks stays close by, And sometimes helps the female or doe.
@@mooseolini1447 I mean ask any rabbit farmer the male rabbits just suck ass at digging and DO need the does. They should've just stayed with the book and used both of the reasons idk why some peeps try to compare humans to a literal other species. Humans got their own lil thing and this movie is literally about rabbits. Guess BBC was trying to be unique or something but there was no reason to exclude the reason that they needed the does to create the next gen when it's just how rabbits work.
I think the reason they didn't add the bucks needing does for babies is because it would give off the message that females are just baby making machines. I know these are animals but the show is ment for kids and you don't want to be giving off the message that all the girls are good for are babies.
Blackberry and Dandelion aren't pointless characters. Dandelion lifted spirits during the journey to the Down by telling stories. Blackberry's intelligence got the rabbits out of some extremely hairy situations i.e: The dog in the woods that forced them across the creek, he figured out they could use the board to help Pipkin and Fiver cross because they were exhausted and wouldn't make the swim themselves. He attributed that knowledge to the boat they use to escape the Efrafans near the end of the story as well. Something that was sadly cut out of the remake and bothers me to no end.
Uhh Dandelion never told stories in the mini series, Bluebell did. Dandelion was the fast one, the one that saved Fivers life from the truck and he also saved them from the birds.
Giraffe Academy you’re welcome and I totally recommend the animated series from the 90’s 100%!!! Those were pretty cool! I mean granted they did stray far from the book but other than that still awesome
@@shellysolomonart The book puts it to better use. The book is VERY LONG, though, and I understand it had more time to evolve these aspects. I think in something that has limited time, you should either expand upon it ( which this failed to ) or omit it entirely. As it stands, it didn't play enough of a role for it to be necessary to the story. In fact, it played no role-...it was just kind of 'there.' The CGI made some bad choices as far as time management goes. In the book, there's no fight with a bunch of crows, only one, and it goes by quick. The new story shouldn't have added some big actions sequence, it should've focused on the characters more. There's a lot I'd change. Honestly, if i had time, I'd love to personally work on a lengthy 2d animated series. To give the necessary time this book deserves.
@Shelly Solomon Art THE POINT OF WOUNDWART'S BACKSTORY WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF MAKING HIM "RELATABLE". And yes, his backstory in the book did indeed have a point. It was to show he was an agressive, powerful and bloodthirsty fighter ever since he was born. He chased after beasts bigger than him since he was young. When he was taken in by a man as an orphaned cub, HE KILLED HIS PET KITTEN. The book is very pragmatic about the animal kingdom, and the roles the rabbits take in the story. Fighters (like Bigwig) are fighters because they were born big and strong, and W. is nothing but an extreme example of that.
So did you just you know completely forget about how dandelion and sunflower fought each other because there was only one doe (strawberry) and that was definitely another reason they made pretty clear about getting doe’s. Not just for digging the warren.
Their a bit to lanky to be European rabbits to be honest. They really look like the Dutch hare rabbit breed, which is a breed f rabbit specifically breed to look hare like.
Bet someone already commented it, but the ill-timed joke in there isn't actually ill-timed. In the book, this rabbit (don't remember his name) comforts and keeps Captain Holly sane throughout their travels to find Bigwig, by telling him countless jokes to keep them from being too frightened. Him telling a joke when Woundwort is about to get them makes a lot of sense. They'd be rightfully terrified and need hope. I agree with most of this review tbh, but its definietly an adaptation to the book and not the old movie. Though I like the old movie adaptation much better. 2D animation makes it much more vibrant and eerie.
I haven't read the book, but I don't like the new one as much, mostly because it didn't cut enough for an adaptation. On the scale of adaptations from Lord of the Rings (the best adaptation for cutting out so much, yet preserving both the plot and the themes) and The Shining miniseries (cut nothing, and is therefore unbearable) the original Watership Down is cuts a whole lot, but keeps an unearthly charm. The new movie feels really hollow.
blue dragonfly Idk why, but that name conjured an image of a secluded warren of hippie rabbits that mark their fur with juice from different colored berries, like war paint, and race each other for fun. XD
i actually really liked the remake. I thought it was a fun watch. In the original it was kinda hard for me to fallow along and understand what was happening. I thought in this one was a lot easier to fallow. I didn’t think the animation was too bad. Some parts are better then others but this is like four hours long and it would be extremely expensive to try to animate everything in a higher quality. Plus I don’t feel like water ship down is that popular. I’m in high school and nobody knows about and are probably against watching it because they probably think it’s just a stupid four hour tv show about bunnies. So why would they spend a ton of money on something that probably isn’t going to blow up and go viral. I really did think this was going to be horrible but in my opinion it turned out good. I’m no movie critic tho. feel free to disagree cause I’m literally pulling this out of my ass.
I watched this movie when I was a kid and I remember the whole scene where Sandleford was being destroyed and rabbits were dying VERY frightening and disturbing. He forgot or dismissed the fact when he said that he missed this part in the remake is that the producers DO have to be mindful that CHILDREN are watching these episodes. I for one don’t blame the producers for toning the violence and gore factor down. It was downright CREEPY in the original, even for adults.
I agree with you that the remake was better. It was hard for me to follow along with the original Watership Down show. And honestly, I’m not one who enjoys old-timey shows. The remake of Watership Down was in my opinion much better. Despite the emotionless faces in most of the scenes in the remake, I still think it was still really good overall.
honestly, the bastardised kehaar was my favourite part of this miniseries:i was so bored with the way they'd done the rest of it that I thought it was hilarious that he just left because he didn't want to deal with it and then came back because he felt like it. he felt like a weird wildcard that I was totally here for
Normally love your stuff but I completely disagree with this review. I think the core of the problem here is you view the 2018 version as a reboot of the original film when it's really a new adaptation of the book. It may not sound like it but that's a very important distinction For example, you say Woundwort isn't meant to be sympathetic and his story should be ambiguous but that would only be true if this was going by the old film. In the book, Woundwort has a backstory almost identical to the new version from the loss of his parents to being a hutch rabbit. In this sense I think the new is superior because it portrays the villain in the way the source material intended. Another is the bizarre criticism that it doesn't include Bright Eye. This song is completely irrelevant to the book and was really only in the old film because it was by a popular singer at the time. There's no necessity to include it. I understand you are comparing the two but deviations from the old film are not problems in themselves as it is not an adaptation of it. To really compare the two as adaptations you should really have looked at their source material.
THANK YOU OMG idk why the hell he kept referring to the animated movie as "The original". When it wasn't at all the prime source material for the BBC series.
@@b.3432 Because the movie is what made it popular and is what's known. No on cares about the book. All comparisons are made from the movie because it's all anyone knows of the material aside from a few book worms who read just about anything to pass the time.
When it come's to Woundwort being sympathic, that's actually something from the books. The reader was told early on about Woundwort's past, so his past was never really much of a mystery. Everything was known about him. And I do recall that, if the author had written the novel again, he stated he would have liked to make Woundwort seem more sympathic. So to me, the BBC series simply tries to do both things.
Also the reason Efrafa is a totalitarian state is Woundwort's paranoia about man discovering it, that's why it's not extended and feeding times are restricted.
Yep I agree. I think it's actually very good, it could have been a lot worse. It def isn't perfect and has problems. Yeah there's a lot less blood but in a way just because there's less gore doesn't make it automatically bad.
《 Handu Fox 》 Yeah, I noticed that too. Either the animation was too cheap to afford more blood, or British censorship forbid them from showing so much violence. British censorship always seems to censor violence the most. Even Steve’s UK version of the original movie seemed to have slowed down some of the footage of Big Wig vs General Woundwort, seemingly for censorship purposes.
My real issue is that while the remake is ok, it's non-offensive. It just lacks any of the real heart or soul of the original. In it's dumbing down and increased length it just lost everything that made the original memorable. It seems the BBC completely failed to grasp that Watership Down is such a cult classic movie is BECAUSE it is very adult in nature and has some very unique and surreal visuals in it;s animation style and it;s use of colour and music. It seems the BBC were just like "oh, people like this cute bunny cartoon from the 70's, let's remake it" Without understanding WHY everyone holds the movie so close to their hearts. This remake is forgettable and that is the biggest sin any Watership Down media could commit.
In the book there was a whole chapter dedicated to Woundwort's past. It details his entire life and crucial experiences that caused him to become the person/rabbit he is, how the things he witnessed and survived formed his worldview and ideology. And I think it was actually a cool idea. It does remove some of the mystery around him, but aside from that I don't think it's a bad thing to make the audience feel sympathy for the villain. It adds complexity and is much more true to life than the old hero-villain dichotomy. The chapter on Woundwort shows that it is our experiences and traumas that shape our self. Woundwort had a very different life than Hazel, that led to him having a different picture of the world and the struggle for survival. Based on his experience and idea of the world he created an ideology that would (according to him) be more conductive to survival. If you know his history and character, it does make sense as to why he runs his warren in this way. You do understand why he came to the conclusion that this was the best way. It's the old "security vs. freedom" debate. Woundwort prioritizes security, because security guarantees survival. But strong security comes at the cost of individual freedom. Considering the size, stability and success of his warren, his means are somewhat justified - if survival is your only metric. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing that the remake included a small flashback to Woundwort's childhood. I think it's a bad thing that it didn't include more. Knowing Woundwort's motives gives the story much more depth (unlike the whole romance thing), as it explains why the warren is run in this way and thus makes the world more believeable. And it didn't reduce Woundwort's villainous nature at all, he remains an incredibly threatening force. Nobody was rooting for his survival at the end. While the story is about rabbits and their survival, it's also about humans. It is a great examination of human nature and the human condition. The contrast between Hazel and Woundwort is a great example of this and the deep understanding of humans Richard Adams had.
Is it weird I enjoy both the Netflix 2018 version and the original 1978 film equally? Along with the book? I literally love all three, can't pick which is my favorite and I've read the book five times
EremikaHaven Not weird. I haven’t read the book, but I do see that the BBC adaptation has advantages and disadvantages compared the original, and vice versa.
I have to be honest, I actually really enjoyed the 2018 version. Granted, I haven't seen the original film from 1978 and have not read the book, but I think that the 2018 version was at least decent if not good and I think some of the criticism in this vid stemmed more from the differences in style and tone between the original and the newer one.
As a rule you should understand that a lot of people don't read fiction books these days! Maybe in education but not willingly. My statement however is not an assessment of the channel owner who I know little about.
Here's a brilliant idea: Make Watership Down but in modern 2D animation. Flesh it out a bit for a longer run time the way the *good* parts of this movie does, but keep the rest the same. More of an... update than a true remake, so to speak. Our 2D animation has progressed a lot since the time of Watership Down. It's probably never gonna happen but... one can always dream...
You know it's a based on a book, right? In the story, most of the changes you hated actually happened in the book lol. Its been a while but when they said the thing about the doe digging, I think that was a real reason in the book
I'm a huge fan of Watership Down and all of its media representations, I did like the Miniseries, (I don't blindly think its the best adaption ever) and felt like it did the BOOK justice more than the original film. On the subject of the warren needing females it's explained in the books that they need does for both the fact that they need a next generation AND that the bucks can't dig as well as does can, Adams used "The Private Life of Rabbits" by Ronald Lockley being the basis of instincts and based these traits on actual behaviors that exist in nature. Bucks don't dig unless forced too. He is not trying to do any anthropomorphism other then rabbits having some higher intelligence and a have a rich oral culture. I mean they can't count to five! Hrairoo, which is Fiver's Lapine name literally means "Little Thousand" or "countless." Woundwort was elaborated well in the book as well, which the original films didn't really mention, but is somewhat surprising when the reader is explained his creation by Adams along with his incentives and reasoning for being so... Woundwort. As for character swapping, it was also common in the original film as much as the book was, and the lack of Pipkin is kind of bit of a downer, I assume because he'd be near worthless in this remake. Secondary Characters and Deuteragonists in the book don't have much in the way of development, they were a lot less complex and shallow, it wasn't until "Tales of Watership Down" did most female and secondary characters get really more complex. Also, bit of trivia, Adams based the other rabbits personalities on people he met during the war. I felt like you weren't really talking much about the *actual* original material, the book, rather than another derivative. Should of read/listen the books my dude, its great, even if its just a "book about rabbits."
@@annafowdy sixteen, Rise of a Legend is the last and my favorite with my favorite character: Lyze of Kiel; I really fell bad for him, his history made me cry.
i remember 12 year old me watching watership down, practically dying from laughter after that seagull said "piss off" (and yes i watched the old one and im surprised i wasnt disturbed af)
The “excuse” that they need females to dig the burrows is actually a valid one. Female rabbits are the one to make the houses and dens for their little mating pairs. Male rabbits are basically male angular fish just less face melts and literally parasitic.
I disagree, I think they stand out more than they did in the 1978 movie. The only characters that were more distinctive were Bigwig, Pipkin, Blackberry and Holly, the rest all just look alike. Which is fine buuuuut it makes it really hard to tell them apart sometimes.
Can we get a few minute loop of Big Wig getting slapped at 13:30? That's the quality of lying you expect from a kid when they're telling their first few lies.
With the romantic thing, another point is that *these are rabbits.* They don't *do* romance. The bit with does being better diggers than bucks is mentioned in the book (does *are* the primary diggers), but it's more an issue during the journey when they have to find shelter for the night, not when establishing the warren. Woundwart's backstory is part of the book. I understand why they wanted to include it, but what they showed was such a small part and at such an awkward time that they would've been better off cutting it entirely. Ugh, and Kehaar. Why did they feel the need to ruin this character. And the other characters. Yeah, I also have serious issues with the new animation. The animals move a lot more realistically in the original adaptation. Heck, they *move* in the original adaptation. Some of the scenes in the new one look like they just threw rabbit models at each other.
@@sasha5534 You should read the book sometime. The author does a very good job making these feel like what real rabbits would be like if they were a little smarter instead of just 'anthropomorphic rabbits.' One thing that's definitely clear in the book is that rabbits *do not* have a concept for romance.
@@sasha5534 Uh, no. Anthropomorphic is attribution human traits to something that isn't human. The original was careful to keep the rabbits *rabbits.* Just adding intelligence isn't anthropomorphic. Also, adaptations are judged by how faithful they are *all the time.*
I was actually sort of frustrated by the way they portrayed Woundwort’s backstory. His parents and siblings were killed by a farmer and a weasel, not a fox. That, and they just shoehorned his back story in like an afterthought.
@@sasha5534 Riiight. Here's the thing, the quality of the adaptation and the quality of the final product on its own are two different things. Ever seen the Atlas Shrugged trilogy? I don't recommend it. They're quite faithful to the book, making them good adaptations, but they suck as movies. I, Robot, on the other hand, is a good movie but more 'inspired by' than 'based on' the source material. This Netflix/BBC version of Watership Down is a bad adaptation. Its quality as a series separate from the source is... kind of meh. The animation is *bad.* The writing is debatable. The voice acting is fine given what they had to work with.
The one thing I’ll always hate about the 2018 remake was the fact that in the original in the fight between Bigwig and Woundwort, when he asks him to come out, Bigwig says his chief has told him to defend this run out of his own loyalty which demonstrates his change of character in accepting Hazel as his leader. Whereas in this version, he just gets told to say it by Hazel and which really pisses me off since it just destroys anything left of Bigwig’s character. Personally, I don’t think Bigwig had a character in this remake
Nobody had decent characterization in the 2018 remake. It was dull, ugly, cheap, and the plot was an absolute mess. Hazel and Bigwig are the worst characters in the remake: the first became a useless and dumb rabbit, the second became an insufferable bully. The beautiful friendship they had in the book and the movie? Gone.
The thing with the brow animation, I can only say one thing. Ice Age. The Mammoths (I can’t remember the names, except Manny and Peaches), are so dependant on their eyes, since their mouths are hidden, but when you look at them during scenes of emphasised emotions, they nail it IMO. When they’re tired, hurt, upset, happy, it doesn’t matter, it’s so beautifully conveyed, and I think if they’d put the effort in here, it could’ve been done. But it’s the BBC, and if they’re willing to screw pensioners out of TV licenses, then a lack of effort is nothing…..
Watership Down is a cute children’s movie.
*but wait*
*it’s not*
This made me laugh SO HARD! XDDDDD
Watership Down is a cute children’s movie.
but wait
there's gore
słeepypiłłs lol
👹 666 likes
No u
*But Wait, It's Not*
*But Wait, It is*
But Wait, it's Not
Thank you for the ♥️
I see you everywhere
Now if only we could get the Animals of farthing wood season 1-3 remake
In the book it’s actually both claims that the original movie and remake have on the need for Does, They needed them because they would need future generations and yeah they needed them because their claws were built to create nests. Bucks legitimately don’t have the claws for digging they’re for fighting.
Riley Keefer it would have been interesting tho if they added both reasons, like first they said they need to carry on their future generations so they need does. But that idea was ignored but later when they try and dig their nest they realize they really do need them. I dunno just thought since you mentioned the book had both it would have been interesting to seen both
I was looking to see if this would get mentioned.
There's also the tv series..
Exactly. While they needed to add both reasons, the first, showing them trying to dig is true. Does are built for digging more the bucks. I raise rabbits and I never put my does in a yard tracker because they will dig out while my bucks never do. Also, does are alot more territorial with other does.
Yeah it makes sense
Another detail that bothered me personally was that fact that in the CG. The rabbits design look more like hares than actual bunnies.
I’m pretty sure that’s because the rabbits in the remake are always standing tall kinda like a jackrabbit. Actual rabbits do a kind of hop-then-sit thing and are bunched up as opposed to standing.
Exactly
What is the difference between hares and rabbits
@@vince3523 Rabbits are smaller and cuter
@@SummonerDagger88 but isn't there a breed of rabbit that's huge?
*_I'm pretty sure the real winner of this battle is the ORIGINAL BOOK itself. It's way better than the two._*
Normies these days paying attention to the anime and live action adaption when they should be focusing on the manga.
@@huorderedthisbigmactaollbe9029 I prefer to watch the anime, but the manga is good as well, fuck the live action ghost in the shell
Massachusetts Mapping & Elevators not with ready player one
Friendship oh great, your that type of asshole eh?
Massachusetts Mapping & Elevators *Cough* The Shining *Cough*
General Woundwarts last words
1987: "Dogs Aren't dangerous!"
2018: "I fear nothing"
Personally I perfer the 2018 but if you like a good meme the 1987
hi Kokichi- that's- kinda ironic coming from you... or something...
there's a word for it I'm just too sleep-deprived to find it.
1978
@Captain Bruh I used to be a Celestia Ludenburg roleplayer gimmie a break-
@Captain Bruh I can't it's in my blood!!!!! [chaotic laughter]
“that's a bloody epic scene“ well yeah, it sure is bloody.
@@dogeggsofficial you do know it was a joke right?
@@DabriciusFabricius Could either be a dumb person or someone making a joke
*But Wait, It’s Not*
As a traditional animator who refuses to give up her paper and pencils (and paints), I appreciate you recognizing how just making something CGI doesn't improve it. The original is one of the best animated films ever made. In re-watching it, I was stunned at the focus on all the GORGEOUS watercolor backgrounds and the intense atmosphere they create.
I agree with you so much. I used to study in 2D animatiom exactly for these reasons. The feels and scents of paper and pencils in your hands, the flow of lines creating the scene,... even CGI will never recreate such emotions, such connections with traditional touch.
Yeah that cgi looks fucking awful.
@@lyneismydogsnamenow I genuinely despise you elitists who shit all over a medium simply because you personally do not enjoy it, nor understand the depth and breadth of skill it takes to craft. You are no different from people who mock fantasy novelists because genera fiction is 'easy'. Take up a tablet. Try and make a ball bounce using 3d modeling and animation. Do it in any style you like, just make it good. That's it. No background. No character. One ball. Of any kind. Bouncing off the ground. Go ahead. Try.
CG /=/ bad
The animator's skill is
Welcome to the film industry, where the higher the effort, the lower the art is worth
I don't really see showing Woundwort's sad backstory as a problem. It doesn't justify his actions or make us feel sympathy for him. It simply explains why he is the way he is.
The Woundwort in the Tv series has a better one. It actually shows why he wants to be in control and hates men
The new one didn’t make sense to me. If he warned everyone about the Fox they would still be alive,if he ran away from the warren then the rest would be alive. The only reason he hates humans because they made him a “Hutch rabbit”
Yeah, but you can do this without showing this, like take Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. We know that he's he villain of the story and just by the way he shows no mercy and brutally kills the main character Willard's team mates and forced to watch what Kurtz does, shows that hate he have for him but while at this time Kurtz monologues on the horrors of war showing why he does what he does, despite it not being justified for what he's just doing to Willard, which is why Willard decides in the end that Kurtz must die. The concept of the villain is that a villain must be shown what they are and what they do here.
Martin Scorsese is responsible for one of my favorite quotes, "Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's not.", which basically means what you choose to not show is as important as what you do. And since the villain is someone who is not only ruthless, but shows a very fatal belief system, think a better way to go was to maybe during one of his moments where he has the character at his paws or is giving a speech to his his followers this is where all the moments of learning who the character is should be, just as long as they don't overdo it. but get into enough, just like Colonel Kurtz.
I am very happy someone said that!
In the book Woundwort's family was killed by man not a fox and it helped play into the bigger theme of man's destruction of everything around it and it also tells how he set up the warren and shows the psychological side of the messed up reality he created without ever making you think he would have a redemption arc, even though he has what you would call a tragic backstory the author leaves no room for sympathy or redemption and then when you're done with the story he seems to have be a little off even before his family dies and it's strongly hinted that he isn't actually killed. They never find a body and they straight up say that they think he's out there still because he's not the kind to die but he won't(probably) come back because he knows he can't win.
Yup thats exactly right. A lot of media does this successfully, humanizing a villain but NOT justifying their actions. You dont have to downplay the villainy or anything like that, in fact its great writing if they manage to draw sympathy for an absolutely irredeemable character because it makes the audience feel conflicted or go through a rollercoaster of motions. Complex characters are good and are way more interesting that one-note villains.
I liked that they added Woundort's backstory as a kind of nod to the book, but they kind of missed the point of it's existence. Here's the full story:
He used to live alone with his mother, father, and siblings near a house with a vegetable garden, and his father would occasionally raid it to get Flayrah for his family. Until one day the man living in this house decides he's had enough. He kills Woundwort's father and then goes for the rest of the family. The mother tries to escape with her kits, but Woundwort is the only one able to keep up. Later a weasel comes and kills his mother right in front of him. A little while later a human comes and raises him, in the safety of a house, far from any danger (sound familiar?) But he still grew up very wild and eventually escaped.
Personally, I think this backstory wasn't there to make us feel for Woundwort, but more so to show his filosophy. It's true that he was taking a lot of rabbits' freedom from them, but he was also keeping them safe. His trauma, combined with his hunger for power, drove him into believing he was doing the right thing. Woundwort was mad, and it was this madness that drove him to his (possible) death.
Thank you for listening to me rambling on about fictional rabbits.
Mysterious Kitten I’ve seen you in four different comment sections in the last day and a half
Why are you everywhere I’m honestly scared
@@deim1nk419 damn this was back when I was taking commenting seriously.
I made sure to get to the videos early and leave a funny or witty comment to make sure people saw me. They did. I got a lot of likes on a lot of different videos.
Sadly, my Reign of Terror has ended since then :(
Mysterious Kitten it’s cool that you’re able to comment so often though, I’m trying to do the same but it’s not really working :/
@@deim1nk419 yeah. It's a mix of luck, timing, and how much people like your comment. I think I just got really lucky.
It was awesome tho.
So Woundwort is Dark Peter Rabbit?
Peter Rabbit + War = Watership down Edit: didn’t expect this to get so many likes thanks people!
Lol
Lol
Lol
Lol
Lol
The death of Violet in the 1978 version bothers the hell out of me because in the book, it was incredibly important that none of the rabbits died on their journey, which is what gave them such high confidence that they could achieve things like breaking the rabbits out of the barn and infiltrating Effrafa because they felt that fate was on their side.
“Violets gone 😬”
It felt so pointless that violet was even there 😂
@@talkingweevil3172Well she was the only doe from Sandleford during their adventure.
@@VALI4NTY0UTH doesn’t matter. She had no purpose.
@@talkingweevil3172 No purpose story-wise but from the rabbits’ perspective yeah she had a purpose.
Woundwort's backstory exists because he's supposed to be an extremist who originally had a point. His original goal to protect others is admirable but then he twists it into an authoritarian regime and it all goes downhill from there.
Without it, he's just a two-note character. Same reason he, in the book, briefly considers Hazel's offer.
Ye. The final showdown was well executed. If they had added any flashbacks like Steve here suggested it would have ruined it. I thought showing the fox attack in the beginning of the episode was just enough information we needed. The whole thing felt like it was Woundworts story in the end, for me.
Even though he was a “two note” character, as you describe, he was still far more memorable because of how evil and cruel and ruthless he was in the original film. The remake tried to humanize him too much and that took away from the mystery of the character l. He didn’t need a backstory. What made him so scary in the original was because we didn’t know what turned him so evil, and to us he was just cruel for no reason. The remake tried to make the viewers sympathetic and understanding of Woundwort and that just ruins the character imo. We’re supposed to fear woundwort, not feel sorry for him
I can STILL hear the ghost rabbits...
"WE COULDN'T GET OUT."
"A FUNNY SOUND, A HISSING, THEN THE AIR TURNED SOUR"
"DEAD BODIES BLOCKED THE ESCAPES"
All of these lines and their delivery are burned into my memory.
Same..... I get nightmares.....
YES..horrible ones xP this movie deeply scarred me for a long time
Great childhood memories
quality entertainment 10/10 would recommend for children of all ages! (seriously this freaked me out in highschool and still haunts me as an adult).
theinternalkiller This traumatized me as a five year old, and I have a fear of rabbits to this day two decades later. Also get flashbacks, and want to cry at any clip I see of it.
As to the "bucks don't dig" - this is used in the novel to show how forward thinking Hazel's warren is. It's established practice that bucks will usually only dig a short scrape for shelter, but actual burrows are dug by the does when they are having kittens. So Blackberry (always the clever one) reasons that they need to do things differently - if they're going to make a go of living on Watership Down they'll have to try new things. The bucks come together to dig the Honeycomb, with the idea of basing some of the design on Cowslip's great warren. And it's a great success - they dig out the warren themselves. (Strawberry gets a lot of the credit as helping to design the warren). It's only after they've finished the whole warren that they realise they need does, to continue the warren after they've gone.
Showsni awesome finally someone gets that!!!!!!!!
I don't remember a female rabbit in the book prior to their attempts to find does.
@@Michael-yl2iq in the '78 movie their only doe gets swooped up by a large bird, not sure if that's in the book
@@north-roadcaveman5818 Been awhile, but I remember reading it maybe 40 years ago and Strawberry was a male and they had no does when they reached their down. That is why they needed to get does.
Also in nature male rabbits can't dig worth fuck
Since its now on Netflix as a ,,Orignal" now i can easily say:
Manga: the Book
Anime: the animated Film
Netflix adaptation: the 2018 miniseries
Dear god...
Sry man, gotta meme this
That is too accurate to have the right to exist
Growing up I always thought that the Animals of Farthing Wood was set in the same place as Watership Down
it really feels like it
Lol that's pretty funny but unlikely that the books were written by the same person I will have to look it up.
lucky luke1983 they are written by different people, the fact that in both of them they have to leave because of humans building where they live always made me think they were set in the same place as a child
@@thunderchild1083 well that makes. You something funny when the first farthing wood book was release in 1979 people said it was a water ship down ripoff then then the 1999 tv series came out that was a ripoff of farthing wood 1993 series. How ironic.
@@84cch when?
I just love the *_But wait its not_* parts
but wait it's not
@Unknown user oh shit it's unkown! but wait
*IT'S NOT*
@@yowennalcachupas9559 it's not
I think the reason they said that bucks “can’t” dig is because in the original book, Bigwig (I think; it may have been one of the others) says that digging is “for does”. Then Adams side notes later that bucks only scrape when they need to, while does do a lot of the digging for their kits. So, they didn’t make it up, they just used it as an excuse so they didn’t have to mention “reproduction” in the movie. So, still a dumb reason 😂
Well yes but Bigwig mentions that if they won't get any females they are going to start fighting, mostly for dominance which could point out the reproduction
Paraphrase from the book "Buck don''t dig, not can't but don't. Not in any serious way."
real rabbits, females do most of the digging. its not that males cant... its just that females do it most of the time & more extensively. i dont understand why they have to use that reason. the major point the group would want females is to reproduce. period.
So, they rather had Bigwig spew sexist nonsense than make the faintest hint at how baby bunnies are made. Lol.
But then they did dig, the created the Warren before the does arrived.
"Kehaar is based on a soldier from the Norwegian Resistance during World War II." Thus the accent. He's based on a soldier that Richard Adams knew during WWII.
I thought he was Swedish
@@user-us7el6ss2l SAME 💀
Hazel: Clover!
Clover: Who's that?
Hazel: It's me, we're back.
Clover: Hazel~!
Me: DAMN get a ROOM you two!
They have no relationships in the old movie
Wow, This is some 18+ content.
Woah calm down that's some explicit stuff right there
My mom said I'm not allowed to watch TH-cam because she read your comment and said it was lewd and obscene ☹️
@@ironwoodnf f
They ruined bigwig my favorite character.
Bigwig stood up for hazel, it was bigwig whose confidence in hazel was a major factor that influenced others to join him to start the journey
Um he did. Took him awhile, it’s called character development.
@@yvonnet6399 yes, but in the book and original movie, he was supportive from the start. Bigwig only had an issue with Hazel when they settled down, because Bigwig wanted to be warren leader. But even then, he realized Hazel would be the better leader. The fact that Bigwig tells General Woundwart that he's holding down the warren because his leader told him to, is one of the most defining moments. He didn't need to be an ass.
@@BruggleStar I never got the impression Bigwig openly wanted to be Chief Rabbit from the book or movie. Perhaps early on he was a bit resentful for taking orders from yearlings (Hazel and Blackberry primarily) and there was the open question going into the common poised by some of the other rabbits of whether Bigwig or Hazel was the leader but after leaving Cowslip's warren it's specifically written there was no more questioning of Hazel's authority. After the raid on Nuthanger farm and everyone believes Hazel to be dead Holly is whom the other rabbits ask to become Chief Rabbit.
@@yvonnet6399 That's a funny way of saying a waste of time
In real rabbit warrens does are the ones who dig. A buck can dig a hole but doesn't have the brain power/instincts to create a Warren. Bucks can't even dig a tunnel. The main reason for a buck to dig is when it's fighting. When two bucks fight they will stop and dig with their tails up, the digging is a show of strength in attempt to intimidate the other buck.
They also will dig a small hole and overturn the dirt during hot weather to lay in and cool off.
Yep. And through the original book, Adams notes stuff about actual rabbit sciences and wildlife study, all marked in subtext.
Because watership down is of course first and foremost an accurate depiction of wild rabbit behaviour. Rabbits in the wild would also rescue hutch rabbits, release a dog to fight a rival warren, run a warren as a police state, chase down deserters etc etc
@@disaidra
He was talking shit about how the reason to have females was bs because bucks can dig. They can't. They do not dig in to book, original, or remake and they don't dig in real life. I was correcting him. And yeah this obviously isn't realistic but it tries to have some shit realistic and bucks not digging is one of those things.
Watership down is actually very concerned about creating a world how rabbits would see it. It is also very specific about Cowlip's warren and Efrara being "perverted" due to human influence. (In Efrafra's case because Woodworth got crazy due to his contact with humans) and that Watership down is different due to Hazel being a particularly visionary leader who does a lot of things which are unusual for a rabbit. Basically there is always a "this is how a proper rabbit would behave" baseline running through it.
maybe that's why strawberry can dig a hole faster than the others
Grandma: *I think I’ll get this on DVD for my grandson, it looks cute.*
Grandson: *(screaming in horror)*
That was literally me at 6 years old 🤣🤣 Except I wasn't horrified it was my favorite movie
Wouldn't it be the opposite? The original book was released in the 70s
@@horuho245 I don't have the book, I want to get it though ☺️
Lol
I've only read the book once, so I might be mis-remembering, but the 'bucks don't dig' and the 'Woundwort backstory' are part of the original novel. The digging thing isn't super important and more used as a extra reason why they need does, so that's probably why it's dropped from the 78 film.
As to Woundwort, in the book, his mother is killed and, I think, he's taken in by a human. In the book it's used to explain why Effrafra is as messed up as it is. Woundwort has the place on lockdown so they don't get found. The 78 film probably gets rid of it for time and so that they don't risk softening Woundwort. The remake might have planned to have a longer sequence that was closer to the book, but cut it in the end. In the remake, Woundwort makes moves on Clover is because 'they're both hutch rabbits' even though we never see him being a hutch rabbit.
Yes in the book his father was killed by a farmer because they lived near a cabbage patch. His mother and him along with his siblings ran away. But his siblings didn't make it and get left behind. Only woundwart made it. But they get stopped by a fox who then kills his mother and full leaves woundwort alone. He's taken in by a school master who keeps him on a cage, but there is also a cat in the house. So it terrorizes woundwart until he finally escapes after months of think. Finding the soon to be his Warren later and fighting his way in, then Killing the chief and takng his place. The whole Warren was meant to be hidden, because he is still scared of man, and that's his biggest fear.
Also yes males don't usually dig, hares or some hares live above ground and dig small holes to sleep in. But females do dig, to make dens for they're kittens (baby bunnies).
You are correct. Both things were present in the book, but the 2018 remake simply handled these factors poorly. Despite some of its shortcomings, the 1978 version did at least streamline the story well enough to keep key elements of the book and its overall theme in tact imo. It was just a much better adaptation as far as I'm concerned, though I will not fault anyone who enjoys the 2018 version more. Adaptations like these are very subjective and largely boil down to opinion, especially if someone has or hasn't read the book.
Mostly yes. The book states that normally it's a Doe who digs but a Buck is capable of digging if he wants. Since they were all male when the started up the new warden, they all pitched in to dig.
i thought part of the deal with his backstory was also something to do with paranoia about myxomatosis outbreaks?
So book readers, is darkhaven a 1999 make up waren or is it in the book?
Too bad the 2018 animation had the 2019 ‘Lion King’ effect. The character models look realistic enough, but the original film had such flair and the lead characters looked much more like real rabbits compared to 2018’s characters
Realistic..how?
They have unnatural body shapes nothing like that of real rabbits
Such as their back legs being too long and their movements are also nothing like rabbits
Rabbits actually hop, these guys..like..limp
@@edelweissbunny5556 do u never have seen rabbit before
@@liirumlaarum712 Yes. Have you? Also, have you considered appropriate grammar?
@@edelweissbunny5556 do you are have stupid? The rabbits that YOU would see are all fat, and also, for the remake and the original movie, they're not rabbits, they're hares.
@@edelweissbunny5556 it's alright. And I do see what you mean now. I rewatched it and it does look a little off.
I wander how long intil remake of plague dogs happens
Never I hope and if it is it will likely be a war crimes
They would probably turn the Todd female to serve as a love interest for Rowf, make all the human characters sympathetic by giving them 'tragic' backstories, have Snitter get cheerfully patched up and adopted by the end and animate the whole thing in CGI from 2001.
mya p no hunny, I rather love the old then having it fucked
That better not happen, it's one of my favorites
No! I don't want a remake of Plague Dogs! They are gonna ruin it!
7:40 That is actually a freaking irl fact that wasn’t just put in there for plot convenience. Female rabbits are normally the ones who dig the burrows because males are crap at it.
That doesn’t make much sense
@@matthewfranks2198 take that up with mother nature man, and it does, gender dimorphism in nature goes deeper than brighter and darker colors and what they got between their legs. They're just prone to digging, and being better at it. its instinct.
@@matthewfranks2198
It’s nature.. it doesn’t care if it makes sense to you 🤡
@@matthewfranks2198 Nature is confusing. Does have instincts and claws for digging while bucks have instincts and claws for fighting
Yeah, males dig as well but females tend to dig more
One of my favourite books....never watched the movies though.
Disappointing to hear they changed basic points, such as taking Fiver's sixth sense about his brother away. Hazel was always "reluctant hero-leader" in the book. Bigwig was the tank who kept order under Hazel. Kehaar talks normally? They don't speak the same language. Why did they ruin the characters?
Also notice how they are never sitting, but always have their hindquarters up? Rabbits lollop and sit, run and sit, hop and sit. These guys look more like dogs with their backs always up. Come to think of it, they look like kangaroos!
We don't get any rabbit loafs of bread :S
WUT ABOUT HOLLY'S MEMORY?
Just because a movie changes stuff from the book doesn't mean it's automatically bad.
@@SavouryGalette no one said that.
@@sherri1699 That's what you implied.
7:50 But in real life female Rabbits as better diggers than male rabbits. There is a real citation to a study that shows that female rabbit dig longer and more consistently and more elaborately than males. Don't ask me why that is but they do.
Even the 2018 version lampshaded it
strayiggyTV Maybe because female rabbits adapt to make dens for their offspring in order to support more rabbits in a space. I honestly don’t know, it’s just an educated guess.
strayiggyTV Interesting, but I’m pretty sure a bunch of male rabbits can dig a warren well enough without any does. They would need does if they wanted future generations to live in their warren, though.
It's BBC trying to sugar coat it.
Who gives a shït
The new watership down is the superior version and is a flawless masterpiece... *but wait, it's not*
How it has the worst writing and animation.
@@luckyluke-ni9ml r/wooosh
@@Cloud_Strife1997 wtf does that mean and the story general is flawed the characters are flat and it is rushed in some parts farthing wood has better characters and is better paced this series was about as needed as the 1999 series which is basicly fathwood only with a higher animation budget.
@@luckyluke-ni9ml Read the comment again, but more clearly this time and actually have a working sense of humor.
@@notgalvatron1698 I was not trying to make a joke but prove a point.
I'm kindoff ashamed of myself because I actually cry when people criticize the original because I love it a bit too much 😅
Same I think it's a masterpiece
I agree with most of your points. But it looks like you forgot watership down was a book before it was a movie. I don't think this was ment to be a remake of the 1978 movie, but an adaptation of the book.
I enjoyed it. I'm probably not watching it again, but it was alright. I think the worse for me was the character designs. I could only tell most characters apart from their voices. They all kinda look alike in most scenes.
But this video isn't about the adaptation it's about comparing the two different films. So the book doesn't really matter in this context.
@@ashleymacdonald3253 but he does call the new one a remake of the 1978 movie
Catarina Neto the only rabbit I could tell apart from the other rabbits were clover, fiver, bigwig, blue berry, and woundwort.... the rest all look the same to me lol
I thought it always a bit too difficult to tell all the rabbits apart. The original and the remake. Of course Bigwig has hair and he's very large so it's obvious. Hazel was thin and small with Fiber normally pretty close by. But most of the other rabbits are brown/grey but don't have a distinguishing personality or a lot of lines to tell them apart
Catarina Neto
‘They all look alike’
Right, but so do actual rabbits
Wouldn't it be better to compare both adaptations to the original novel rather than against each other?
The novel does cover the male rabbits needing females to dig burrows because males only have the drive to dig scrapes to rest in. Females dig dens to raise their kits in.
The novel also covers Woundwart's backstory to show why he's so cautious of being found by humans.
This is like comparing Netflix's Mowgli to Disney's Junglebook. Of course they're not going to match 100% They're trying to cover different aspects of the novel.
Mind you, the original movie is more loyal to the book when it comes to characterization and plot points.
Yeeah that's why I'm unsubscribing this channel. Netflix series is its own adaptation of the book, not a remake of 70's animated movie. Plus he is drasticaly missing some points that WERE explained clearly in the movies (not only in this video but also on his Felidae review). Jeez I expected an entertaining channel about animated movies yet I have another reviever that is not doing their research correctly and complains about things just because he's missing the point.
I agree. I still enjoy this because I like the comparisons but I feel like it is unfair to act like the remake is wrong for being faithful to the book in certain ways. Most of the points weren’t like that though and just hinged on what he thought worked better so I wish he’d focus more on that next time.
to be fair, if there are no females around to raise kittens then there's no drive to dig at all...
Ok people THIS IS ABOUT MOVIES!!! Not books he's comparing the movies. You're so obsessed with the damn book and not even realizing what this is about it's about the movies he probably knows there's a book. It's just not the topic of the video. So you're unsubscribing bc you're mad he didn't mention one little thing seriously? You people get on my nerves
Go be stupid on your own comment. People are just rightly pointing out that he's mistaken in thinking that the new series is a remake of the movie instead of a retelling of the original novel.@@user-vr8ve6rt9c
About the “Bucks can’t dig, we need does”: both movies are correct with the book. They need does to dig because does have the instincts to dig for their kittens
Even so, needing pussy is like a 10 times better reason than hole digging
@@beetletwoese8952 I mean, they kind of dig a hole themselves... Yk
@@beetletwoese8952 as a non-straight person, ew and also it helps with the longer time run, with that they need does for digging
Lunnii Moon your spelling is really throwing me off here man
@@beetletwoese8952 ok I don't care cry about it all you want
I can't help but wonder if you've ever actually read the book. A lot of the things you're perplexed by in the remake are actually misguided attempts to include things from the book. Like, the reason a rabbit would make a shitty joke in the middle of a suspenseful scene is because in the book, he was established as having gone a little mad in the destruction of their home warren, and was constantly making silly jokes.
He hasn't
I doubt it, considering he doesn’t mention once that there is a book
And Bluebell's jokes were something that captain Holly appreciated because it kept him grounded, reminding him that there were still fun things despite the trauma they went through
Clearly has no idea a book exists even.
yeah, bluebell did that shit a lot.
They have de-brutalized the doom of old Warren. In the book and original movie the warren was destroyed by locking all holes and poisoned rabbits with gas. It was cruel, brutal, something so unbelievable it never happened before, reminding gas chambers in German death camps. They were obsessively digging in panic, fighting with each other for another breath, choking with blood and suffocating, creating the pile of twisted dead bodies in corners (gas chambers again). It suppose to be shocking and it was in the original movie. In BBC series it was so flattened... The builders just came, started to dig and destroyed the warren to build houses... I mean, tragic but... Meh
Better than the original in my opinion as that animation made no sense to me.
This scene felt more like a nightmare about Cowslip's warren than a first hand description of the destruction of Sandelford. It was eerie and unsettling when it should have been the most devastating cataclysmic moment in the entire story. Zorn!
@@gavinbunting7354 It was artistical desicion and a pretty strong one. because it was HORROR in the litteral sense. And sorry the fking Remake Toned it way to down - like OP said "Meh".
Bluebell said he had to claw through bodies and was digging at times to escape, dazed and confused by the gas. He saw a boy hunting down rabbits and spitting them on a stick. Could you imagine humans being hunted and their dead bodies mutilated by a species who didn't care? Maybe we're inured or insulated from it, but Nature is a hard Mother and these animals live stark lives. Perhaps part of the book was to remind us of Man's Inhumanity to Man and shake us up to what happens in the world.
@@ginnyjollykidd Wait you mean Holly. Nobody else got out. And even if they did they would NEVER be able to track Hazel and the gang alone through so many trials. Holly wasn't Captain of the Owsla for nothing. This rabbit was smart and strong. ... Bluebell psshhh really no.. but great gawds thats from the book I havent read it in so long. Adds a whole new level of horror. Im pretty sure you mean Holly though.
"The CGI isn't that bad" - People with low expectations.
Yeah the fact it came out basically in 2019 (sssssuuuuper late in December 2018) there's really no excuse for it being THIS bad. 10 years ago? Sure we could probably excuse it but I've seen better fan made CGI vids done for art school and such that DID come out nearly 10 years ago. :/
@@missquinn7379 One word. Budget.
@@tobycuret5783 well they had 5 million pounds per episode with 4 in total so no, still no real excuse
@@missquinn7379 That budget was likely spent on the celebrities, let's be real
@@meevins Doesn't matter, the budget was still there
The animation in the remake looks like an unfinished xbox cutscene. I can't stand it
I can stand it better than the stupid animation of the movie, it was just so bad to me
i think they both have their goods & bads
No it looks like a play station 3 game.
😤
Its according to the client requirements so u cant even critise the animations and other aspects
I think in the end when you asked about the crappy joke it was more showing how they didn't want their story teller to panic. In real live when rabbits panic they can die very easily from just a small panic. The idea of them calming him down with a joke is kind of heartwarming.
The remake was also the first version I saw I've yet to see the original but I do think they did a good job telling the story on the remake. It gave me mixed emotions and the only thing I didn't like is how stiff the characters' movements are. They don't seem to stretch out much or show how flexible rabbits are in real life. It did ruin a lot but I think showing more and exploring more character arcs made it worth the watch. And as for changing out the brotherly bond vs the romantic bond could have made people upset either way. If they hadn't changed it and made the brotherly bond come back it would have been still just as bad. The idea of clover coming to his rescue and saying she doesn't want to be a part from him again makes it really obvious about how hutch rabbits don't actually have any survival instincts or smarts to show how she's supposed to accept death. She's very naive and as it should be. (Because pets shouldn't be released). And as for hazel being blan and dumb i feel it helps us really love him that much more. In the remake he goes on to explain his struggles with finding out why he should be a leader and questions his worth in the group but eventually becomes an amazing leader and his friends stop worrying about him as a leader. The idea of everything changing made the remake feel adventurous and showed how fast you can mature when you really need to.
I still haven't checked out the remake since I'm still mentally scarred from seeing the original when I was five, haha. I do have to say, the style of the remake makes me a bit uncomfortable. There is something... weird about it. It reminds me of those old, awful computer animations that have this realistic skin slapped on top of them. And it disturbs me greatly.
Also, regarding the weird explanation for needing to get the does:
" Female rabbits can be more territorial than males and like to dig holes as this is their traditional role in the wild."
So in the wild, female rabbits are actually the ones that dig the holes. But it still sounds kinda bizarre to just throw it in since having the females to be able to breed sounds much more believable.
@@emmimoilanen6701 When I heard that part of the remake I was baffled as to why they changed it, but that does make a bit more sense. But still, that makes it a matter of 'female rabbits are more naturally inclined to dig' than 'female rabbits are the only ones capable of digging'. The bucks were even digging when the scene started! They could have dug out the new warren if they had to, but they can't reproduce without does. It comes across as a trivial thing to bring up when there's a far more pressing concern to address. The only reason I can think they made that the reason was to seem less sexist by giving the female rabbits a reason to be there other than as baby makers. But that fell flat when the only thing that came to my mind was a bunch of grown men from the 50's standing around saying 'we need women because men can't cook or clean!'. Yes you can, you've just never had to and don't want to because society deems that as 'women's work'. To me it comes across as more sexist than needing does to, you know, reproduce. Something they actually cannot physically do without does.
I bet that BBC put that there with good intentions, but I don't think they thought them all the way through.
@Dhara, oh hi Johnny.
The Uncanny Valley, but with rabbits.
Regarding the childhood trauma, I know where you're coming from, and I found the remake easier to watch. The nightmare inducing scene of the destruction of the home warren doesn't terrorize so much. There is far less blood and of rabbits ripping each other apart. To the worse or betterment of the story I couldn't really say.
Hey Steve would you mind doing a review on this movie called 9? It’s a little creepy animated movie that I recommend
Edit: God! Over 250 likes? Thanks guys (and gals as well)
One 4 All such a good movie 👍
pkslider725 I love 9. I approve your suggest. And besides, there is Elijah Wood, aka Frodo Baggins🤩❤️
One 4 All damn, that was a fucking decent movie, I give that movie a solid 8/10 :)
One 4 all? I like your name, it reminds me of MHA :>
legendary movie
Who else thought the 3D animation was clunky?
It was v e r y
Looked like the graphics from a Nintendo 64 game. From 1996 😒😓
It was a bit, they needed to vary the pacing of the keyframes more but maybe they were rushed by a deadline or a short time frame. If they really would have gotten more realistic they could have motion captured some actual rabbits running around.
Its so bad honestly.
The Dragon Prince prepared me for this
07:40 - Guess you never read the book? That's also a biological fact. Bucks don't dig, they protect the warren and fight other bucks. In the book and the animated show it is Hazel who talks the others into actually trying to work, but that's also why they are motivated to rescue the does. Blackberry was the only female with them in the cartoon, and she couldn't dig it out alone.
Google disagrees though. It is unlikely they will do it but they still can do it. Bucks do dig but just not to the same degree or for the same reasons.
@@mittensfastpaw Hazel mentions that they can (though weird as it is) and they do as waiting around needlessly without a home is stupid.
In the cartoon adapted series they explain why bucks need to learn to dig, since Blackberry was the only doe at the time.
Blackberry was never a doe, Blackberry is a male in both book and the old cartoon
Oh boy, the walk/run cycles,
Now, that’s the real horror.
OMG ikr! They don't even move like rabbits! They move like mutations of rabbits, look at the legs! Their way longer then the front legs, that's not how rabbits look or move!
There fucking cheap ass fake fucking rabbits.
I had pet rabbits.The cartoon animation of the original was much more realistic
That’s how hares walk and run. Oh yeah btw BBC is a documentary company or at least does documentaries. Have they not seen a rabbit before?
i couldnt put into words what was so offputting about the visual style of the remake, and this is exactly why. the OG animation had animators that obviously understood rabbit anatomy.
This wasn't a good review.
But wait, it was.
This must be the most clever comment of the video.
But wait, it's not.
Are you a dick?
Nah.
I'll take a shot each time he says : *"But Wait, It's Not"*
Are you alive
Ah heudixicurbrix8 wtf hide 7xudbdheif
Don't you'll die of alcohol poisoning
@@bananakitofinternetclan8350 at least they won't know what's happening
I think that describes everything I’ve seen from this channel so far
Something i always liked about the original was how Woundwart looked. He was this hulking, bulky monster of a rabbit that had this genuine menace that came from his design, to the point where he's barely even a rabbit anymore. Meanwhile in the remake he's indistinguishable from any other character save for some scars on his ears and his eye, he doesn't look intimidating or monsterous, which massively detracts from how intimidating he's meant to be.
You really hit on something here. The remake tries to look more realistic, possibly a reflexive reaction to using CGI. As a result, the rabbits are all pretty samey-looking. But the original had a much more stylised approach to the art so all the major characters are clearly distinguishable.
I like the new Woundwort's design because he looks like he could be fast as well as strong. The original Woundwort looked like he could win a fight through brute strength alone. The novel actually emphasises that he "won almost every fight of his life by using his weight". However, raw strength isn't the most effective combat strategy and if Woundwort's weight and sheer aggression won't get the job done, he doesn't have much else going for him.
This Woundwort looks like he could dart around and outflank an opponent by using speed. He gives off the vibe of a fighter who uses skill instead of just relying on being bigger than other rabbits. His size certainly helps but agility is often more important than power because it's always advantageous to hit your opponent before they hit you.
This also helps with the idea that Woundwort might have survived his fight with the dog. Granted, his chances are very slim and Woundwort was fully aware of that but by using speed instead of just strength, he could get under its guard. It's mentioned in the book that the dog was injured when it limped back to the farm, so Woundwort clearly put up a hell of a fight, despite already being exhausted. And his body was never found.
If you like Watership Down, then Plague Dogs would be right up your street.
It's so sad
I loved watership down and then I watched plague dogs and I loved it even more.
Thank you for this comment
The plague dogs break my heart, especially at the end you don’t know if they reach the island or not
I love both.
I dont know why so many people expect the BBC version to take things from the '78 version when the newer one was not using the old film as source material... of course they're going to do things differently because the source material is the book itself. The old film was more successful visually but imo I think the newer one captured the book better. When reading the book I honestly didn't get the same "creepy" vibes the '78 film induces, and I think the 2018 version captures the vibe of the book a bit better. But to each his own.
Same
“But wait, it’s not.”
-Steve Reviews, 2019
The 1978 movie's animation of the rabbits is so more realistic than that of the tv-series 1999-2001 and even of the BBC-version.
Me seeing the thumbnail:
*wait?... THERES A REMAKE???*
Michael Haflich
Me: there was an original 0.o
Michael Haflich dumby
Actually already a second remake. There's also a british-canadian TV series from 1998 ... 🤷♀️ And yes. More polished up for kids!
I said: there was an original movie?!
But wait there’s not 😐
Ok I’ve noticed a lot of comments on here referring to how the book is better, and how the BBC remake is superior as it made lots of references to the book that I missed, such as the Does being able to dig better than the Bucks. Full disclosure, I have not read the book, and perhaps I should have made that clear in the video, but here’s my response:
1) This review was purely to compare the two films to one another, and that’s it. I never really get it when people look at the book as a direct form of entertainment comparison. A book is a completely different medium and offers the individual a completely different experience to watching something on a screen. It’s like saying that playing a board game is much better than playing a video game, when in fact they’re two different things. By all means you can state how the book handled things different, such as story elements and characters, but you can’t compare they’re entertainment quality.
2) People are saying that if I had read the book then I would fully understand why the BBC remake mentioned such seemingly pointless things, such as the Bucks not being able to dig as good as the Does. This is apparently fully explained in the book. Well here’s the thing.. the book may have explained better as to why the Does are the better diggers, but the BBC remake did not, it simply threw it in as a random line of dialogue with no context surrounding it. Therefore it is assuming that I must have already read the book, so don’t need it fully explained to me. That’s bad writing, I should not have to go seeking additional source material in order to understand what’s going on, it should all be fully explained in the film itself. If one of the rabbits in the remake just added a bit of extra dialogue such as “we never learnt how to dig as in our old warren it was the Does that dug out the tunnels” then fine, but it didn’t.
3) I hope you are all having a wonderful day.
:)
You shouldn't be comparing them to begin with when they arent remakes, they're VERY DIFFERENT adaptations of the same source material. Seriously like trying to compare Taming of the Shrew with "10 things I hate about you:". Same source material, similar characters, very different film.
It was a great video. Idk why people always throw in how the book is this and that. The books usually aren't under the same time constraints and can be as long as need. They are a different medium like you said and should be treated as such. I'm subbing
Uhh.. The fact that the does dig better is fully explained in motion. We see them digging better, and faster, several times.
It actually strays farther from the book than the '78 film. And the decisions made were stupid.
no, bad writing would be exactly what you just typed. if they had to explicitly state that they never learned how to dig for you to understand that does are the diggers, then the problem was you. good writing is "show, don't tell". the remake did quite enough to get the point across; i hadnt read the book when i watched it either but i wasnt going to assume i knew better than the writers about animal behavior based on nothing whatsoever.
This is a 2019 comment
But wait,
It's not
... 🤦♂️
@@angelicangielio this is an djdnrkkemmedmmxmxmfkx
LrFLFKTOAGKKGTK FXJZ
I just had a stroke
But wait,
I didn't, i banged my head on my keyboard
This is a 2020 comment
But wait
It’s not
@@spinosaurusaegyptiacus7440 this is a 9200 comment.
But wait
It *Not*
I liked they added the romance to the remake, but you are right about Hazel and his brother’s relationship should be more focused on. Hazel and Clover could be on the side.
2018 remake of Watership down is well animated
*but wait*
*it's not*
The animation was.... *ok* but I feel like BBC used up all the money they could’ve used to make the animation better, on paying the voice actors. If BBC chose some good voice actors that would work for a low price, than I think the animation might’ve been *way better*
I liked the animation...
@@zerolayne8245 liked it too, i dont know why everyone hates it so much
@@toxicrelief2142 because it strays away sir.
@@v.k.rt.m.6030 at least they actually remade it for the generations who haven't watched it like me.
7:59 they do expand on it. He later is yelling at one of his generals for being afraid. In the flashback he was afraid of the fox and failed to warn his family. It gives a reason to why he stresses the need to not be afraid. At the very end as the dog is about to kill him he tells himself that he isn’t afraid.
He also killed a cat or fox i think in the book.
Thank you for saying that, this is how I had seen that as well. The funny thing is if I remember right, I think that bit got lifted from the TV show that what made a while back. If you want Watership Down where it gets washed out and drags on way to far (It should had ended at season 2 as everything about season 3 was just pointless.
I actually really enjoyed the remake and I want to watch it again. The animation was uncanny in places, like when the rabbits hop and their facial expressions but it's not that horrid...people are overreacting a lot. I do agree the whole Clover and Hazel thing drove me NUTS. Like why? What's the point? They should have made more time for Fivver...I felt like he barely got any screen time. The same with general wound wort (probably spelt their names wrong but oh well)
Same! I loved Fivver and wished there was some more character for him! And with the animation... if a story is a good story, I forgive the animation quality
@@pbpeanut1144 My thoughts exactly- they replaced one of the key scenes for Fivver with Clover which was god awful. I do not understand why they did that. But yeah that's my mindset too. If the story is good enough I can forgive the animation. Not to mention I doubt the budget for this was that big. People shouldn't be expecting Disney quality.
It kinda annoyed me that clover and hazel didn’t have kids in the end. I liked the way how clover was more important and wasn’t as pointless as she was in the original, but I think hazels brother should have gone with her. I liked it better when he went.
Watership Down will always have a special place in my heart. I saw the original on TV as an evening special broadcast. I was so moved I cried, my mom explained to me that there was a book, and we spent several weekends scouring used bookstores till we found a very nice used copy that I hold dear to this day.
This seems to me to be one of those things that really didn't need a remake unless they were really going for broke to do a perfect book translation....
Ooof. You gotta read the book. Explains so much stuff so much better. The clover thing is so irritating. Hazel never even ended up with her. Romance never comes into play, it's all about mating and breeding. And Fiver has a vision that leads him to Hazel. And there's way too much wrong with how they do everything with kehaar.
Why can't movies ever just follow the source material... Lol. The author doesn't even like the original cartoon movie. I wonder what he thinks of the remake...
Side note: Kehaar's foreign accent was there to emphasize that he came from far away, that he shouldn't have been in the area in the first place if not for the fact he got injured during migration
Author died in 2016
Damn, sad that he died. At least he left something meaningful behind with this books.
Lot of awesome people keep dying lately, what's up with that?
hollywood should just give up, the book is always best 📚
Ryuzaki Ookami at this point i dont think its supposed to be a down to the details remake its more like a easier to understand, modern, morw child appealing way of telling a classic
Want to point out real quickly that the joke bluebell made 'a hoptomist' - while validly not to your taste - is accurate characterization taken from the book. In the book bluebell actually arrives with holly, and holly credits his constant bad puns as the only reason he didn't lose himself to despair while tracking the others. Blackberry also references bluebell's tendency to crack jokes during tense or frightening moments in the second episode, and actively discourages him from making one shortly after. Some people respond to fear with humor as a coping mechanism and this is very much what bluebells deal is.
Can you do the Iron Giant movie please?
Good movie would love to see a review
That movie is the best warner bros animated movie
I always cry
I have never seen Iron Giant. Its that movie with that giant robot hat saves everyone from an astroid, right?
Yes please!
"Males tend to be more easy going and relaxed while females are usually "the boss" of any household. In the wild, rabbits pair up into couples with the female digging their burrow and the male defending her and the burrow against intruders."
The point being, that male rabbits are still entirely capable of digging and this is a poor reason to give for finding females.
Continuing the perpetuation of your kind, thus not rendering all your efforts for naught, is a much better motive for them to find females.
Eradicating this natural and healthy motive from the narrative, especially when this was the only motive presented in both the original animation *and* the book, is sort of the BBC's MO.
It's obviously motivated, not by a desire to convey realism (much less to remain true to the source material) but to promote a certain ideological/cultural viewpoint.
Everything must be sterilised and castrated, everything must be denatured, in order to produce generations of mewling weaklings, who cry over animated blood.
Your kinda right, Yes the female rabbits can be the Boss. But to me they keep the males and maybe other females in order.
@@mooseolini1447 Your kinda right, Some animals can be better diggers then others. The females are better diggers cuz the females dig for there baby's. The males don't really help to dig. In real life out in the wild sometimes the males or bucks stays close by, And sometimes helps the female or doe.
@@mooseolini1447 I mean ask any rabbit farmer the male rabbits just suck ass at digging and DO need the does. They should've just stayed with the book and used both of the reasons idk why some peeps try to compare humans to a literal other species. Humans got their own lil thing and this movie is literally about rabbits. Guess BBC was trying to be unique or something but there was no reason to exclude the reason that they needed the does to create the next gen when it's just how rabbits work.
I think the reason they didn't add the bucks needing does for babies is because it would give off the message that females are just baby making machines. I know these are animals but the show is ment for kids and you don't want to be giving off the message that all the girls are good for are babies.
Who else didn't even *know* there was a remake before finding this video?
**Raises hand**
*Also raises hand*
*Raises head* I hAvEnt evEr seEn aNy of thEM
I didn't need to know thanks a lot youtube you fucks
*Jumps out of window will raising hand*
Technically there 2 remakes-
Blackberry and Dandelion aren't pointless characters. Dandelion lifted spirits during the journey to the Down by telling stories.
Blackberry's intelligence got the rabbits out of some extremely hairy situations i.e: The dog in the woods that forced them across the creek, he figured out they could use the board to help Pipkin and Fiver cross because they were exhausted and wouldn't make the swim themselves.
He attributed that knowledge to the boat they use to escape the Efrafans near the end of the story as well. Something that was sadly cut out of the remake and bothers me to no end.
Speaking of Pipkin, I missed him
Uhh Dandelion never told stories in the mini series, Bluebell did. Dandelion was the fast one, the one that saved Fivers life from the truck and he also saved them from the birds.
Giraffe Academy but in the book, Dandelion told the stories
Mariah Raichert Thanks for telling me, I only watched the mini series
Giraffe Academy you’re welcome and I totally recommend the animated series from the 90’s 100%!!! Those were pretty cool! I mean granted they did stray far from the book but other than that still awesome
Honestly the actual darkness of the scenes in the remake made it look like I was staring at a pitch black screen
27:05
Steve: “Why would you break the tension?”
*Because that was the goal. They knew they were about to die so he was trying to cheer his friend up.*
Exactly
Please do “The Secret of Nihm” that movie scared she crap out of me as a kid
He made a video on it :D
I was 7 wen I saw it
He already has, my friend
“That’s the cutest f**king thing I’ve ever seen”
*MEME NOISE*
Woundwart's backstory was explored in the book. Maybe read that...
@@shellysolomonart The book puts it to better use. The book is VERY LONG, though, and I understand it had more time to evolve these aspects. I think in something that has limited time, you should either expand upon it ( which this failed to ) or omit it entirely. As it stands, it didn't play enough of a role for it to be necessary to the story. In fact, it played no role-...it was just kind of 'there.' The CGI made some bad choices as far as time management goes. In the book, there's no fight with a bunch of crows, only one, and it goes by quick. The new story shouldn't have added some big actions sequence, it should've focused on the characters more. There's a lot I'd change. Honestly, if i had time, I'd love to personally work on a lengthy 2d animated series. To give the necessary time this book deserves.
Did they allude to the 1000 enemy story?
@Shelly Solomon Art THE POINT OF WOUNDWART'S BACKSTORY WAS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF MAKING HIM "RELATABLE". And yes, his backstory in the book did indeed have a point. It was to show he was an agressive, powerful and bloodthirsty fighter ever since he was born. He chased after beasts bigger than him since he was young. When he was taken in by a man as an orphaned cub, HE KILLED HIS PET KITTEN. The book is very pragmatic about the animal kingdom, and the roles the rabbits take in the story. Fighters (like Bigwig) are fighters because they were born big and strong, and W. is nothing but an extreme example of that.
They also touched on it in the tv series
I think you need to read the video title again he is comparing the original film to the to remake not comparing them to the book
So did you just you know completely forget about how dandelion and sunflower fought each other because there was only one doe (strawberry) and that was definitely another reason they made pretty clear about getting doe’s. Not just for digging the warren.
It's still odd they gender changed Strawberry for the series.
I think you mean Dandelion and Hawkbit
I the only one who thinks the rabbits in the clips he's showing of the remake don't look like rabbits at all? They look like Hares.
Their a bit to lanky to be European rabbits to be honest. They really look like the Dutch hare rabbit breed, which is a breed f rabbit specifically breed to look hare like.
To be fair it's not just the clips Steve is using. It's the whole thing. They are all designed that way and move on their tip toes.
@@cyberwolf_1013 I only worded it like that because I haven't actually watched it.
@@strayiggytv that would be the belgain hare :)
That's because English rabbit's are bigger than American one's
Bet someone already commented it, but the ill-timed joke in there isn't actually ill-timed. In the book, this rabbit (don't remember his name) comforts and keeps Captain Holly sane throughout their travels to find Bigwig, by telling him countless jokes to keep them from being too frightened. Him telling a joke when Woundwort is about to get them makes a lot of sense. They'd be rightfully terrified and need hope.
I agree with most of this review tbh, but its definietly an adaptation to the book and not the old movie. Though I like the old movie adaptation much better. 2D animation makes it much more vibrant and eerie.
In the book he comforts everyone by telling them a story while bigwig fights the general.
I haven't read the book, but I don't like the new one as much, mostly because it didn't cut enough for an adaptation. On the scale of adaptations from Lord of the Rings (the best adaptation for cutting out so much, yet preserving both the plot and the themes) and The Shining miniseries (cut nothing, and is therefore unbearable) the original Watership Down is cuts a whole lot, but keeps an unearthly charm. The new movie feels really hollow.
Bluebell was Holly's companion.
@@ginnyjollykidd I was thinking 'Speedwell' for some reason.
blue dragonfly Idk why, but that name conjured an image of a secluded warren of hippie rabbits that mark their fur with juice from different colored berries, like war paint, and race each other for fun. XD
i actually really liked the remake. I thought it was a fun watch. In the original it was kinda hard for me to fallow along and understand what was happening. I thought in this one was a lot easier to fallow. I didn’t think the animation was too bad. Some parts are better then others but this is like four hours long and it would be extremely expensive to try to animate everything in a higher quality. Plus I don’t feel like water ship down is that popular. I’m in high school and nobody knows about and are probably against watching it because they probably think it’s just a stupid four hour tv show about bunnies. So why would they spend a ton of money on something that probably isn’t going to blow up and go viral. I really did think this was going to be horrible but in my opinion it turned out good. I’m no movie critic tho. feel free to disagree cause I’m literally pulling this out of my ass.
I watched this movie when I was a kid and I remember the whole scene where Sandleford was being destroyed and rabbits were dying VERY frightening and disturbing. He forgot or dismissed the fact when he said that he missed this part in the remake is that the producers DO have to be mindful that CHILDREN are watching these episodes. I for one don’t blame the producers for toning the violence and gore factor down. It was downright CREEPY in the original, even for adults.
For the record, I really I really liked the remake
I agree with u
I agree with you that the remake was better. It was hard for me to follow along with the original Watership Down show. And honestly, I’m not one who enjoys old-timey shows. The remake of Watership Down was in my opinion much better. Despite the emotionless faces in most of the scenes in the remake, I still think it was still really good overall.
I like the 2018 version too
honestly, the bastardised kehaar was my favourite part of this miniseries:i was so bored with the way they'd done the rest of it that I thought it was hilarious that he just left because he didn't want to deal with it and then came back because he felt like it. he felt like a weird wildcard that I was totally here for
Normally love your stuff but I completely disagree with this review. I think the core of the problem here is you view the 2018 version as a reboot of the original film when it's really a new adaptation of the book. It may not sound like it but that's a very important distinction
For example, you say Woundwort isn't meant to be sympathetic and his story should be ambiguous but that would only be true if this was going by the old film. In the book, Woundwort has a backstory almost identical to the new version from the loss of his parents to being a hutch rabbit. In this sense I think the new is superior because it portrays the villain in the way the source material intended.
Another is the bizarre criticism that it doesn't include Bright Eye. This song is completely irrelevant to the book and was really only in the old film because it was by a popular singer at the time. There's no necessity to include it.
I understand you are comparing the two but deviations from the old film are not problems in themselves as it is not an adaptation of it. To really compare the two as adaptations you should really have looked at their source material.
THANK YOU OMG idk why the hell he kept referring to the animated movie as "The original". When it wasn't at all the prime source material for the BBC series.
@@b.3432 Because the movie is what made it popular and is what's known. No on cares about the book. All comparisons are made from the movie because it's all anyone knows of the material aside from a few book worms who read just about anything to pass the time.
I completely agree with you and ur argument
David McGinness but He wasn't comparing the book to anything. He was comparing the original movie to the new one and telling us his opinion.
David McGinness deviations from the older film aren’t the problem it’s the fact that the reboot watered them down and made the narrative so boring
When it come's to Woundwort being sympathic, that's actually something from the books. The reader was told early on about Woundwort's past, so his past was never really much of a mystery. Everything was known about him. And I do recall that, if the author had written the novel again, he stated he would have liked to make Woundwort seem more sympathic. So to me, the BBC series simply tries to do both things.
Also the reason Efrafa is a totalitarian state is Woundwort's paranoia about man discovering it, that's why it's not extended and feeding times are restricted.
@@GrubStLodger I know that, yeah. It was explained in both the book and the BBC adaptation.
I saw it and and I think it’s actually pretty good, but there’s like barley no blood
Yep I agree. I think it's actually very good, it could have been a lot worse. It def isn't perfect and has problems. Yeah there's a lot less blood but in a way just because there's less gore doesn't make it automatically bad.
《 Handu Fox 》 I’m scared that’s what is going to happen to the warriors movie, if it is ever finished.
@@oliviamalerich462 oh jeez can't wait for that. Bet they won't even adapt the series past book 2.
《 Handu Fox 》 Yeah, I noticed that too. Either the animation was too cheap to afford more blood, or British censorship forbid them from showing so much violence. British censorship always seems to censor violence the most. Even Steve’s UK version of the original movie seemed to have slowed down some of the footage of Big Wig vs General Woundwort, seemingly for censorship purposes.
I couldn’t agree more about how good the 2018 version is now if only we could get an animals of farthing wood season 1-3 remake
Steve: *grew up on scary sh-t like this*
Me and 68% of his subscribers: *grew up watching bambi*
Watership up
More like Aircar up
@@wienerschnitzel1739 more like Airplane up
Fireplane up
Earthmobile northwardd
Firecar diagonal
I'm so over remakes of 2d animation. The art is one of the key things that define the movies.
Yes. CGI is not better in all cases.
except its not, its a remake of the book.
My real issue is that while the remake is ok, it's non-offensive. It just lacks any of the real heart or soul of the original. In it's dumbing down and increased length it just lost everything that made the original memorable. It seems the BBC completely failed to grasp that Watership Down is such a cult classic movie is BECAUSE it is very adult in nature and has some very unique and surreal visuals in it;s animation style and it;s use of colour and music.
It seems the BBC were just like "oh, people like this cute bunny cartoon from the 70's, let's remake it" Without understanding WHY everyone holds the movie so close to their hearts. This remake is forgettable and that is the biggest sin any Watership Down media could commit.
this is not a remake of the movie. its another adaptation of the book
@@chinbunny1 well if that's the case then it's even less Faithfull to the source material.
cult classic novel. the original movie was crappy compared to the book
@@Noobie2k7 the original movie wasnt that faithful either. they changed alot of it from the book
@@Noobie2k7 I agree with you 100%
In the book there was a whole chapter dedicated to Woundwort's past. It details his entire life and crucial experiences that caused him to become the person/rabbit he is, how the things he witnessed and survived formed his worldview and ideology. And I think it was actually a cool idea. It does remove some of the mystery around him, but aside from that I don't think it's a bad thing to make the audience feel sympathy for the villain. It adds complexity and is much more true to life than the old hero-villain dichotomy. The chapter on Woundwort shows that it is our experiences and traumas that shape our self. Woundwort had a very different life than Hazel, that led to him having a different picture of the world and the struggle for survival. Based on his experience and idea of the world he created an ideology that would (according to him) be more conductive to survival. If you know his history and character, it does make sense as to why he runs his warren in this way. You do understand why he came to the conclusion that this was the best way. It's the old "security vs. freedom" debate. Woundwort prioritizes security, because security guarantees survival. But strong security comes at the cost of individual freedom. Considering the size, stability and success of his warren, his means are somewhat justified - if survival is your only metric.
Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing that the remake included a small flashback to Woundwort's childhood. I think it's a bad thing that it didn't include more. Knowing Woundwort's motives gives the story much more depth (unlike the whole romance thing), as it explains why the warren is run in this way and thus makes the world more believeable. And it didn't reduce Woundwort's villainous nature at all, he remains an incredibly threatening force. Nobody was rooting for his survival at the end. While the story is about rabbits and their survival, it's also about humans. It is a great examination of human nature and the human condition. The contrast between Hazel and Woundwort is a great example of this and the deep understanding of humans Richard Adams had.
Is it weird I enjoy both the Netflix 2018 version and the original 1978 film equally? Along with the book? I literally love all three, can't pick which is my favorite and I've read the book five times
EremikaHaven no it’s not weird
EremikaHaven Not weird. I haven’t read the book, but I do see that the BBC adaptation has advantages and disadvantages compared the original, and vice versa.
I have to be honest, I actually really enjoyed the 2018 version. Granted, I haven't seen the original film from 1978 and have not read the book, but I think that the 2018 version was at least decent if not good and I think some of the criticism in this vid stemmed more from the differences in style and tone between the original and the newer one.
Same
but wait
have you actually read the book?
No he hasn't
As a rule you should understand that a lot of people don't read fiction books these days! Maybe in education but not willingly. My statement however is not an assessment of the channel owner who I know little about.
Me and my freinds : *Quaking*
Everyone at my school : *Mental break downs for everyone*
Love the book. My favorite book of all time!
I don't think so, since he doesn't act like he knows that the plot elements he's complaining about are from it.
Here's a brilliant idea:
Make Watership Down but in modern 2D animation. Flesh it out a bit for a longer run time the way the *good* parts of this movie does, but keep the rest the same. More of an... update than a true remake, so to speak.
Our 2D animation has progressed a lot since the time of Watership Down. It's probably never gonna happen but... one can always dream...
All of that, and follow the book
Tattorack I would love to see more of the rabbits’ mythology myself!
Check out the watership down cartoon!
like wolfwalkers!
You know it's a based on a book, right? In the story, most of the changes you hated actually happened in the book lol. Its been a while but when they said the thing about the doe digging, I think that was a real reason in the book
"Hey kids, I have a great movie for you...it's about rabbits. You like rabbits don't you?"
*Parents in 1978* Perfect!
*Parents in 2018* WTF IS LIKE WHAT THE F-
I'm a huge fan of Watership Down and all of its media representations, I did like the Miniseries, (I don't blindly think its the best adaption ever) and felt like it did the BOOK justice more than the original film.
On the subject of the warren needing females it's explained in the books that they need does for both the fact that they need a next generation AND that the bucks can't dig as well as does can, Adams used "The Private Life of Rabbits" by Ronald Lockley being the basis of instincts and based these traits on actual behaviors that exist in nature. Bucks don't dig unless forced too. He is not trying to do any anthropomorphism other then rabbits having some higher intelligence and a have a rich oral culture. I mean they can't count to five! Hrairoo, which is Fiver's Lapine name literally means "Little Thousand" or "countless."
Woundwort was elaborated well in the book as well, which the original films didn't really mention, but is somewhat surprising when the reader is explained his creation by Adams along with his incentives and reasoning for being so... Woundwort.
As for character swapping, it was also common in the original film as much as the book was, and the lack of Pipkin is kind of bit of a downer, I assume because he'd be near worthless in this remake. Secondary Characters and Deuteragonists in the book don't have much in the way of development, they were a lot less complex and shallow, it wasn't until "Tales of Watership Down" did most female and secondary characters get really more complex. Also, bit of trivia, Adams based the other rabbits personalities on people he met during the war.
I felt like you weren't really talking much about the *actual* original material, the book, rather than another derivative.
Should of read/listen the books my dude, its great, even if its just a "book about rabbits."
24:24 Goes full on Gardians of Ga'hoole for a sec there.
Wow, shocked anyone else knows this film exists
@@dustyrose192 it was originally a book series. Fifteen books.
@@annafowdy sixteen, Rise of a Legend is the last and my favorite with my favorite character: Lyze of Kiel; I really fell bad for him, his history made me cry.
@@GatitoYPerrito28 oh, yeah.
@@annafowdyeyup and now I’m resding them! The books are sooooo much better
i remember 12 year old me watching watership down, practically dying from laughter after that seagull said "piss off"
(and yes i watched the old one and im surprised i wasnt disturbed af)
Where you watched it?
I read the book when i saw the PO bit
The “excuse” that they need females to dig the burrows is actually a valid one. Female rabbits are the one to make the houses and dens for their little mating pairs. Male rabbits are basically male angular fish just less face melts and literally parasitic.
The more I Google after reading comments like this one about the subject. The more I see ignorance won on the matter.
@@mittensfastpaw ok mittens
I was really annoyed with remake not making characters distinct enough, apart from big wig, all the rabbits look exactly the same :/
I payed more attention to the personalities and payed less attention to the looks.
I thought the exact same thing
I could only tell apart fiver big wig and captain holly
I disagree, I think they stand out more than they did in the 1978 movie. The only characters that were more distinctive were Bigwig, Pipkin, Blackberry and Holly, the rest all just look alike. Which is fine buuuuut it makes it really hard to tell them apart sometimes.
Can we get a few minute loop of Big Wig getting slapped at 13:30? That's the quality of lying you expect from a kid when they're telling their first few lies.
As much as I like both, I feel that the Netflix series was closer to the book.
Even though Pipkin wasn't even in the remake for some reason
With the romantic thing, another point is that *these are rabbits.* They don't *do* romance.
The bit with does being better diggers than bucks is mentioned in the book (does *are* the primary diggers), but it's more an issue during the journey when they have to find shelter for the night, not when establishing the warren.
Woundwart's backstory is part of the book. I understand why they wanted to include it, but what they showed was such a small part and at such an awkward time that they would've been better off cutting it entirely.
Ugh, and Kehaar. Why did they feel the need to ruin this character. And the other characters.
Yeah, I also have serious issues with the new animation. The animals move a lot more realistically in the original adaptation. Heck, they *move* in the original adaptation. Some of the scenes in the new one look like they just threw rabbit models at each other.
@@sasha5534 You should read the book sometime. The author does a very good job making these feel like what real rabbits would be like if they were a little smarter instead of just 'anthropomorphic rabbits.' One thing that's definitely clear in the book is that rabbits *do not* have a concept for romance.
@@sasha5534 Uh, no. Anthropomorphic is attribution human traits to something that isn't human. The original was careful to keep the rabbits *rabbits.* Just adding intelligence isn't anthropomorphic.
Also, adaptations are judged by how faithful they are *all the time.*
I was actually sort of frustrated by the way they portrayed Woundwort’s backstory. His parents and siblings were killed by a farmer and a weasel, not a fox. That, and they just shoehorned his back story in like an afterthought.
@@sasha5534 Riiight. Here's the thing, the quality of the adaptation and the quality of the final product on its own are two different things. Ever seen the Atlas Shrugged trilogy? I don't recommend it. They're quite faithful to the book, making them good adaptations, but they suck as movies. I, Robot, on the other hand, is a good movie but more 'inspired by' than 'based on' the source material.
This Netflix/BBC version of Watership Down is a bad adaptation. Its quality as a series separate from the source is... kind of meh. The animation is *bad.* The writing is debatable. The voice acting is fine given what they had to work with.
Agh, I miss in the movie when the seagull told the Rabbits to 'Piss off.' if only they added it.
The one thing I’ll always hate about the 2018 remake was the fact that in the original in the fight between Bigwig and Woundwort, when he asks him to come out, Bigwig says his chief has told him to defend this run out of his own loyalty which demonstrates his change of character in accepting Hazel as his leader. Whereas in this version, he just gets told to say it by Hazel and which really pisses me off since it just destroys anything left of Bigwig’s character. Personally, I don’t think Bigwig had a character in this remake
Nobody had decent characterization in the 2018 remake. It was dull, ugly, cheap, and the plot was an absolute mess. Hazel and Bigwig are the worst characters in the remake: the first became a useless and dumb rabbit, the second became an insufferable bully. The beautiful friendship they had in the book and the movie? Gone.
The 2018 remake is way better then the original
BUT
WHAT
ITS
NOT
Jelly Roll it’s but wait it’s not but *what* it’s not
Jellyfish Art
BUT
WAIT
IT
*IS*
Lmao my other reply was a joke, plz don’t take it seriously!
kehar in the original is nice in the remake he is kind of a dick
The thing with the brow animation, I can only say one thing.
Ice Age.
The Mammoths (I can’t remember the names, except Manny and Peaches), are so dependant on their eyes, since their mouths are hidden, but when you look at them during scenes of emphasised emotions, they nail it IMO. When they’re tired, hurt, upset, happy, it doesn’t matter, it’s so beautifully conveyed, and I think if they’d put the effort in here, it could’ve been done.
But it’s the BBC, and if they’re willing to screw pensioners out of TV licenses, then a lack of effort is nothing…..