Most of your criticisms of this new remake are spot-on. But I feel compelled to ask: Did you actually read the book? I mean the unabridged version. In the book, Hazel is not a reluctant leader. He spent most of the earlier arc trying to play leader. The reason other rabbits are credited for a lot of their good fortune is because of what Bigwig, Fiver and Blackberry did. For example, in the book, it was Blackberry that came up with the idea for Fiver and Pipken to ride on the piece of wood. When Blackberry tried to explain the idea of using the piece of wood as a raft to Hazel, he didn't understand any of it. That makes sense (because he is a typical rabbit) while Blackberry is known for being smarter than most rabbits. Heck, Blackberry was even smart enough to make Hazel out to look more like a leader during that time by waiting for him to shout an order to the other rabbits. Though all Hazel said was "Swim!" The original movie made quite a few changes. And this remake made a few improvements, but honestly, the first movie is still much better. But I'm glad that made Hazel more like the book than the first movie. Also, the General's backstory was in the book.
@@DigitalWraith Hey, sorry for the late reply. I was just browsing old comments now. Yes, I did read the book, although admittedly only once when I was very young. I wanted to re-read it before this review, but didn't have time, so I didn't really remember it as well as I thought I would. As a result, I made few glaring mistakes. You make some valid points, but I still feel like the 78 film more captures the spirit of the book even if the Netflix series does capture a few details of the book that the 78 film didn't.
There seems to be a huge push to eliminate 2D animation in favor of 3D. I'm not sure it's always needed, or even a good idea Disney is in the process of making a 3D Beauty and Beast, and a 3D Dumbo, and a 3D The Lion King. I am not sure these remakes add much. If anything, make a 3D sequel.
I agree, I miss 2D animation terribly. Although there is a difference between 3D animation and live action. ;) Mind you, since The Lion King has no humans, it's just going to be hyper realistic CGI (which although I'm not going to deny it'll look amazing, it's still pointless to me when the original hand drawn animated film is perfectly fine and should have been left alone, no remakes necessary). And live action Beauty & the Beast came out last year. You're saying Disney is making another Beauty and the Beast remake already?! =P (wouldn't put it past them at this rate, sadly). No 3D sequels! As for this adaptation of Watership Down, this review has cemented my decision to not watch it. I also grew up with the 1978 film and the book, watching and reading both books since I was about 7 or 8 years old. The blood and gore and all the scary imagery in the film did not traumatise me. Yes, I found it scary of course, but the story of the rabbits captivated me and I read the book so many times I wore out the pages. Children are more intelligent than given credit for and should not be wrapped in cotton wool their whole childhood, like they seem to be these days. They should be allowed to view the 1978 Watership Down, perhaps with supervision for their first viewing.
Heh, I'm a 3d animator (for games) and I miss the hell out of 2d. My lead animator had to get out of it, and into 3d several years ago, for lack of work.
I'm sometimes ok with live action remakes but they are most of the time terrible lol like beauty and the beast... But films like tangled are taking over as the new Disney style and I don't like that... I like the old drawn stuff 😒 everything looks the same now
I absolutely love the 1978 Watership Down, it's one of my favourite movies! The characters were very likeable and realistic, the animation wasn't annoying and the story was a lot better portrayed.
I am a huge fan of the original, but I actually enjoyed the Netflix version. My only critiques were the animation that looks like Pixar early shorts and removing the whole sequence of the Grimm Reaper rabbit which, like you said, is the most artistic and memorable scene form the original. I still enjoyed it very much though.
i couldnt get through it (its a bbc one thats on netflix right?), the animation is just too ugly for words. and it's not even an idenitfiable style either, it's some half ass stock design that looks like it's from a ps2 game
@@internetenjoyer1044 its a shame you couldnt get through it, or even enjoy it, I didnt read the books or watch the earlier films, but as a stand alone, the mini series is great. I like the writing, the story telling, the high stakes, and with time I got used to the animation, you can identify each character too, they have small but noticeable differences which I also enjoyed for it's realism.
I might have enjoyed the reboot a lot more if I wasn't so fond of the novel and the terrifying 70s movie. One of the stand-out issues for me is how they characterised Bigwig. He was always as confrontational character, but he was never as mean as this show has him, and he respected Hazel's leadership and judgement far earlier in the story. Part of his character was that he was kind of used to following authority because of belonging to the Owsla, so it was natural for him to fall in behind Hazel once he had proven himself a competent leader. Also he was a lot more compassionate towards the smaller rabbits like Fiver and Pipkin, and was willing to risk their initial escape attempt from Efrafa because he didn't want to leave Blackavar behind to be further abused. Am I too attached to this big bastard bunny? Probably. But I can't help but feel a bit cheated at their treatment of a character I enjoy so much.
No, you saw Bigwig as I did. He was my favourite character. I have yet to watch the new version, I'm humming and awing abouy it because I grew up with orginal and Keyha thr Seagull, if he's not swearing in it or cussing out the bunnies...it's just gonna ruin it..
I was very confused by some of the choices in this remake. There's a scene in Part One where they cross a stream while leaving Sandelford warren, and the whole thing pauses as Blackberry notices a paint can floating downstream. I thought, "Oh, okay, they're foreshadowing the big spoileriffic scene where Blackberry figures out how to use the punt to escape with the does." But then it never happens. Likewise there's another scene where Dandelion is established as one of the fastest runners. Again I though, "Oh, okay, they're foreshadowing the big spoileriffic scene at the end where Dandelion is one of the runners in the plan against Woundwort." But then they go out of their way to point out that Dandelion *can't* do the run because he's been injured, and sub in another rabbit. The whole script is full of moments like that. It's as if someone read the source material, but then went out of their way to correct plot points that weren't actually problems.
This got me too - it's not necessarily the most heinous change, but that scene at the riverbank when they're escaping Sandleford really grated on me. In the book and 78 film, they need to cross the water because there's a dog and it will pick up their scent. Here, they're escaping owsla which makes no sense, because they're all rabbits and they can all swim!? The owsla can just follow them across the river. That said, there were other changes I thought were good. It didn't only deviate from the book. I liked that characters like Bluebell and Strawberry were included unlike in the 78 version (though I missed Pipkin!). I thought Hyzenthlay and the does in Efrafa got some more focus and development which was good, and I didn't hate the extra character development in characters like Hazel (although this video has made me think about that a bit more). The scripting was painful in places though.
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 OP here was talking about Blackberry and Dandelion. Had nothing to do with SJW tenants--these two characters just didn't do what they were supposed to and the change made no sense (omission of the boat and having Blackavar instead of Dandelion bring the dog). I had no problem with Hyzenthlay's character development, if that's what you're upset about.
Adams was careful not to make the rabbits too human. Rabbits do not form romantic relationships in real life, and they don't in the book. The BBC version has them falling in love. It makes them seem not like rabbits at all.
No you are absolutely correct here. the rabbits didn't need to be romantic like us humans in order to be relatable or interesting. that is NOT the purpose or moral of the story. it is about avoiding one extreme to the other (domestication vs totalitarianism vs nihilism) as far as "making them relatable" to humans..... they were becoming allies with mice and birds, learning strategy and overcoming obstacles in unusual ways!!! how much more relatable do you need it to be!? As someone who has raised rabbits for over ten years the original story was just the right balance. The other great allure to this story was how it constantly pointed out the differences between humans and rabbits and other animals. the rabbits knew they were rabbits. they also recognized that deviating too far from their ... rabbitness..... was what would lead to their destruction or loss of freedom. there are tons of other stories if for people looking for something warm and fuzzy.
@@Hy-Brasil Well don't you know? In the common era if someones pussy isn't getting wet or someones dick isn't getting hard it's not relate-able to humans... That's why the classic is superior because it doesn't change genders for the sake of political tolerance, it doesn't feel the need to overly humanise the rabbits with frivolous complexity (complexity in this case is it's downfall). General Woundwort being a symbol of oppressive force is far more impactful than making him more of a character. Categorisation and identity isn't important what is and will always be important is personality
@Stranded NYer I think the point he was trying to make was that our modern society glorifies romance/sex to the point where they won't find something good or relatable unless they involve either the two. It's quite laughable.
@@ragingrayquaza7982 Yeah, except one thing. You're not allowed to have sex in "kids" shows. Blood and guts, torture, decapitation...fine. Sex?... NOPE!
My biggest complaint is clover. If you want to add another female character, why would you steal over half of the only prominant female character that already exists. Hysenthlay was and is one of my favorite characters but they reduced her roll to a weak failure who had to be save by a domesticated bunny 2 days out of the hutch.
I think this actually makes her a much stronger character. Because despite her looking weak Spirit would never truly broken. At least not until the very end when they tried to kill her. Actually really like how they did her character in the new version
Oof I was actually kinda excited about this remake but wHY IS IT SO DESATURATED Like 7:46 look at those pretty colors, they make the scene far more impactful, and then we cut to the 2018 version and boom it's all gray and brown and UGH
I think it is bit dull in color. However, they wanted the 3D animated movie to have a realistic color scheme for the tunnels and such. Part of why the 2D animated movie back in the 70s had more colors was probably to better differentiate between things and to imply depth in ways 3D animations doesn't need to.
I really don't find these colors pretty, if anything seens like the animators took some LSD while making it. But I gotta agree that these colors make the scene more disturbing.
Northflower i mean i haven’t seen the entire original movie but when i compare the original clip to the 2018 clip, the 2018 clip of that scene honestly makes it a little more scary especially when they do that little flash with silverweed. the grey and brown make it more realistic anyways
Woundwort's 'tragic' past (his past is explained in full detail) and a human girl saving Hazel and the adult human returning him in a Hrududu are in the book. There is an odd but notable flaw in this version: Efrafa here is built around human stuff, clearly just to make it look more creepy for viewers, but the whole point of Efrafa is that Woundwort is overly strict about safety and wants to make sure humans won't find his warren. I also REALLY do not understand why they didn't include Dandelion in the dog plan as he was established to be extremely fast in this version as well.
Yeah, but the entire drive behind Woundwort's fascist behavior was literally to avoid their warren being detected by humans. Kind of hard to do that when their warren's right in the middle of an old mill site near a town.
The CGI was awful. However the 1978 movie was also criticised for bad animation. So it may grow in time. I just miss "Bright Eyes" how can the light that burns so brightly suddenly burn so pale 😭
At least the animated bunnies in the 78 version had the bouncy skittishness common to rabbits in contrast to the reptilian stiffness of the 2018 version.
I feel if anyone is passionate about the original 1978 movie (as myself) you are just going to struggle with this version. It happens think Psycho, The Wickerman? Some classics like these will never ever be justified. The only good thing is, it does raise awareness to a new audience digging out for the original to watch.
I was struggling through just this video saying that the 2018 version is just a waste of time, and I haven't seen it yet. Watership Down, the book, and the 78 movie, was one of my favorites - I grew up in the 80's and this was a definite go to(read the book 3 or 4 times watched the movie tons of times) Maybe he's right and if you hadn't seen or read the book and movie it's ok, but it's one of those once seen/read it can never be unseen/unread.
We can only hope that future generations will look up the original book/movie. If I saw the newer Psycho FIRST... I'd be DONE with the WHOLE thing. RUINED!! We don't need to see Norman Bates masturbating. (or even hinted at) The original was art, not porn.
@@nymri8537 If you look at it as an adaptation instead of a direct translation of the book then it's passable. People are really blowing it out of proportion in my opinion. To me nothing will replace the book so there's nothing to lose. No harm in trying one episode with some popcorn. It is enjoyable to watch some of the people in these threads lose their cool over trivial things and act like experts about a book they admit to not remembering well.
I am glad I am not the only one that felt this way. I loved the novel. I read it in third grade, and read it at least once a year for years after that. The animation is not good, awkward and rough somehow. The worst thing though, is the way they rush through it. They should have spent one episode on the nightmare trip through the forest, dealing with the despair, and showing Hazel's leadership ability. They should have spent some time on Fiver's visions, on the way outskirters are treated, and the reason each of the individual rabbits choose to leave. They should also have kept true to the book as far as Bigwig's character. There was no need to change story points like the attack of crows instead of rats and the rabbits trusting the floating garbage can lid (which should have been a plank) without fear and confusion. Cowslip's warren deserved an episode of its own to do credit to the horror of living in the enemy's warren and paying his price. One of my favorite scenes was entirely cut. I love when fiver pops up with his eyes blazing and backs Bigwig down then tells Dandelion, he will tell him a story for El'ahraira to cry. Even the opening story of Frith's blessing seemed to lack the heart of the cartoon and the book. I was disappointed. Maybe if I had never read it or seen the original, I might have enjoyed it, but I just ended up yelling at the tv.
I'm with you, it's my fav book ever and I think the 78 film did as well as possible with regards to staying true to the story and the mood of the book. New version is hraka.
I've come to the conclusion that all these horrible remakes are being made to make us cherish the originals more, because that's all they do for me. That or lazy hacks just want money.
+gen101394 Every time I find things like this, I go online to secondhand-websites and google 90's (or 80's, or 70's, or 60's etc.) stuff. Or I go to the thriftstore and buy things I wanted as a child (like a bracelet-making set) and I make the bracelet with the artistic abilities of a 27-year old. Especially with the increasing speed of all the new movies being published, the new Iphones being made, the new programs, the new styles, the useless gadgets and the humanoid-prototypes that will be able to 'love like a human, but better' I think a large part of the people will stop 'running' and realise we're going the wrong way, by trying to love robots and hard, shiny, perfect, flawless beings with fast, hypershiny, ultra-modern capable-of-everything-items. It makes life boring. Remastered dubbed and digi-colour-bright versions of Karate Kid, aren't nearly as entertaining as the original. It's charming to see something in it's original form. I am happy to see there are a lot of people that realise that as well. Maybe slightly unrelated, but based on a documentary I recently saw, about female complimentary chatbots being popular online, my aversion to modernisation has grown. One of my biggest fears is to one day, live in a world where my human skin and emotions are worthless and 'flawed' and where the world prefers perfect robots that say exactly what everyone wants to hear. People that would cut my conversation short and instead, go home to chat with their compliment-bot. Or having a partner that says he's leaving me, because he fell in love with a humanoid that does everything better than I do and never ages. I like humans and I like their flaws. I like it when people blushingly admit a silly quirk of them, like people that imagine they are in a videoclip whenever they turn on a song. Or people that are fascinated by elephants, simply because they are a dainty ballerina and love the powerful large steps that the elephants make. Or people that collect rocks and shells or spontaniously sing together.
@@westminsterabbey.6916 Thankyou :) Good to hear haha. May there be many more of us around that think the same way and will cherish mortals and their human efforts! ^_^
Chrisfragger1 I didn’t mean it that way. I think it’s good to talk about death and such but showing more graphic scenes to very young children will only scare them rather than help them understand. You have to wait until they’re a little older.
@@zoeparker2897 Ok... I mean we used to see shit like Bambi's mom getting capped... And it was scary, but important. I guess we have a difference of opinion on this.
Chrisfragger1 I think the difference in those death scenes is that yes, it is heavily implied that Bambi’s mother was shot to death, but the movie never shows any graphic images of her as she dies or once she is deceased. Bambi runs at the instruction of his mother, the gunshot is heard, and Bambi slows down and realizes that she is no longer with him. Children can understand this and feel the sadness and seriousness of the topic without having to experience the raw fear which bloody scenes and direct violence on screen inflict on them. In that regard I think Bambi did a much better job of opening the discussion of death without making it too frightening for children, while Watership Down, on the other hand, was intended for older audiences but was instead labeled for children. I don’t think death scenes should be hidden from kids, I just think the blood and gore is unnecessary. They will understand better if the issue is shown to them in a less graphic way because they will not want to cover their eyes or run and hide.
The 78 version helped me understand and process my great-grandfather's death. I've been worried to watch the 2018 version due to having that connection with the movie. I'm glad you went over the differences.
Great review from someone who loves the original as much as I do. Credit to everyone who worked on the original all those years ago. It hasn't been surpassed and big studios still have a lot to learn about good storytelling.
The BBC doesn't own the rights to the song Bright Eyes, nor do they own the rights to the 1978 animated film, that's why it wasn't included in this adaption.
@@SwiftNimblefoot yeah the others are 100% BBC don't own the copyright... but in hindsight it didn't mean they could go and ask to do a cover of it... maybe they could've used some money to go to using it... instead of lining the pockets of one Ms. Jodie Whittaker so she could get that Canada Goose fur coat that she always wanted...
Didn't they switch the role of Fiver and Hazel in the end? I believe Hazel got caught by the cat and rescued by the girl, not Fiver like the 2018 version showed.
Yeah they did, that i found a bit odd as in the book/original film it's Hazel who get's caught by the cat. It's a shame Pipkin wasn't in it... really surprised by that.
They changed a lot. The opening story of Frith and Elahrairah is one. The one that bugged me to no end though, was the scene where the rabbits have to cross the river. Book and the 1978 version both had the loose dog being their motivation, not the Sandleford Owsla chasing them. The 'loose dog' being the key element that's brought full circle to inspire Hazel to go free the farm dog and lead it back to the Down when the General attacks. Without it, it just... I dunno. I know the crew were probably trying to throw in some more suspense but they also said they were trying to be true to the book, but they changed enough that it just wasn't. Like the Efrafan warren being located in an old human mine, when any fan who's read the books knows how Woundwort felt about humans, being the entire reason he was so incredibly strict with how he ran things. His rabbits were forced to bury their poop like a cat, only allowed out in small groups to eat at different intervals through the day and all of that was to avoid humans discovering the warren. Setting up camp right in the middle of a place where humans could very easily go and explore, being an old worksite, just didn't work for me.
Yes. It was a mistake on my part that I didn't point out it was Hazel who was rescued by the girl Lucy in the book and movie, but they switched it to Fiver in this version.
@@StoryDive I think many adaptations of long sprawling novels like this need to make compromises in the choice of characters that are allowed in the movies/series. Novels have a lot of time to develop many characters. Movies and TV have limited budgets and screen time, especially if they blow a chunk of it on big names like Ben Kingsley. As a result, less important plot points may be dropped or multiple characters will be combined or switched to improve pacing and save actor budgets. Unfortunately, this has the effect of completely changing the nature of the characters. I think making Fiver physically heroic at the end was out of character since he was a cerebral and intuitive character in the book.
We watched this at least 100 times as kids of the eighties, still love it so much. I agree that as an adult and the happily ever after shit they put out now it's even more amazing, also with the environment we're all subjected to today it taught me so much about so many things. I'm shocked and happy that my parents had no problem letting us watch this over and over again.
Good review of the problems with the 2018 version, most of which I agree with. The worst crimes were the characterizations of nearly everyone. Obviously you pointed out Hazel, Bigwig, and Kehaar's changes were the worst. But other crazy changes included the fact that Dandelion in the 2018 version hardly had a role, and was injured so he couldn't lead the dog, Bluebell was gay for some reason, and Blackberry never came up with anything. Woundwort did, however, get a backstory in the book that made him a bit more sympathetic, like in this version, but he also came across as too cliche evil in this version. The character development for Hyzenthlay was good--in the book she was an interesting character too--but fleshing out the other female rabbits just to be love interests was stupid. But I think we are romanticizing the 1978 movie too much. For one, it was almost gratuitously violent, even compared to the book, inventing characters just to kill them (Violet) or killing ones that didn't die in the book (Blackavar). It also was so rushed, that it hardly made sense. The true horror of Cowslip's warren was not explained. The ending especially--no one got any resolution. Did Bigwig bleed to death? Did Fiver die after his little freakout on the honeycomb floor? Who the hell knows? It was too rushed to tell us.
I was soooo happy to read the book in the 6th grade and discover that Blackavar lived! I always felt so sad about that moment in the movie (which I saw first). And the part about Cowslip's warren in the movie version is so truncated as to be nonsensical. I genuinely had zero idea what that was all about and when I finally got to read the novel was really very annoyed that they'd even bothered to keep it in as this little 15-minute interlude and then cut Strawberry's character out entirely. And the addition of Violet was just plain stupid and unnecessary. (also annoyed at the absence of Bluebell and that the trip to the farm was this whole mission that nearly killed Hazel but was totally pointless as all of the hutch rabbits were recaptured... but I could live with those changes).
@@arete7884 In the book, Hazel dies of old age, which is friggin' miraculous for a rabbit. He gets visited by a young rabbit he doesn't recognize until he realizes it's El-Arairah come to invite him to join his Owsla, so Hazel leaves his body behind (dies) and goes off with him. It's a perfect and lovely and very sad ending to the story. As for Woundwort, he calls his rabbit officers to come back because "dogs aren't dangerous" and goes after the dog himself. They never find his body so he becomes a sort of boogeyman figure that mothers tell their babies about, "behave or the General will get you" (and a few of his former officers firmly believe he's still alive somewhere).
Why don't you people like change? You all think change is a bad thing and act like some major differences in movies, tv shows, and books will kill you. Also, are you assuming Bluebell's gay because he tried to kiss Blackberry AS A JOKE? If you would have paid attention in the 2018 version, Bluebell was known as the storyteller AND A JOKESTER. Did you know that, or were you too dramatically hurt by the changes that people purposefully made for a good reason?
Funny; I watched this series last night and I thought it was alright, some parts are odd but I found entertainment in Netflix's rendition of Watership Down.
@@minxx. this version has almost nothing in common with the novel or 78 version, except character names. Please, trust me and check out both. Also, the blood that turns a lot off is necessary. This is a species that live short, violent lives. A species that formed a society based on being prey.
Abm 1, I don’t even know how to access the 78 version. I’m aware that this newer version has basically nothing in common - a lot of people have been saying it in the comments.
13:37 ah in the book we get woundwarts backstory which does make him sympathetic. He was the survior after him and his siblings were slaughtered and had to struggle on his own to build a place for protection, unfortunately sacraficing freedom in the proccess.
Most of my complaints have been mentioned in the video or in other comments. One I haven't noticed yet, though, is that they laid the "humans are EEEEEVIL" message on thick, especially in the middle. This is contrary to the book and '78 movie, where humans aren't malicious but apathetic and blind to the consequences of their actions. Another one, now that I'm thinking about it, is that they significantly changed Hazel's motivations for a good chunk of the story to be fear of humans. I thought they might have been trying to draw some sort of parallel between him and Woundwort, but then they ironically never go into that aspect of Woundwort's character (ironic in that they try to flesh him out, but don't go into the traits he actually had in the book).
That was obvious to me just from the trailer that they were going to be high handed about the "humans bad" message. The apathy of humanity towards the natural world is the much more important message, rather than humans maliciously destroying the homes of cute bunnies cause EVIL.
@@alialpaca I know that the question isn't for me but I can give you some examples. Kubo and the Two Strings is one. It's stop motion and dark/sad. Anything put out by Laika is dark. The Box Trolls. Isle of Dogs. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Of course these are all stop motion but they are still animated. If you want more darker themed "kids" movies stop motion is the best place to look outside of Japanese animated movies.
@@Ind1go404 I actually wanted to know some good dark kids movies, they're fun to watch, I...really didn't try to sound cool, I don't know where you get the idea, but I think calling someone stupid for no reason really.... Is actually, well... Stupid
I don't remember all of the does being held hostage and getting branded. The last time I read the book was in college. I bought the DVD, or my grandparents did, but it had a profound impact on my psyche. Those rabbit characters were very well thought out and portrayed. These bunnies are kinda stiff. I'm watching and wondering about their motivation. And they also look more similar to American hares. One of the General Rabbit guy looked like he had a kangaroo face look to him. Just my opinion, of course. I definitely think this movie has strayed from the book, and the first movie, which I would like to see again to see if I'm not holding prejudices through my perception of time, and growing up process.
In the book they were marked and treated like second rate citizens . Bucks saw them only as breeding stock. They had no choice on mates nor freedom like in this version. Clovers scary encounter with woundwort kind of elaborated on that. The efrafens were terrible to their does in the book to the point where they were so over crowded they could no longer bear litters and were ready to start dying off. An efrafen officer could also have any doe he wanted and she had no choice but to obey him. They were under orders for mating
The reason it is like this is because Richard Adams (The books author) wrote the story and characters the way he thought animals would behave, and having rabbits talk about mates in such a way is very accurate to the animal kingdom, excellent story telling, very believable
I think part of what makes that scene so great is the music. It's been building up with the chase and the fight between Bigwig and Woundwort, and then reaches the climax when Hyzenthlay returns to the warren with the dog on her heels (in the book it's Blackberry and Dandelion).
@@84cch It fit well with Woundwort's character. Groundsel at the end of the book and Campion in the sequel describe why Woundwort was held in such high awe and fear in Efrafa even while his restricted policies created such unrest. That Woundwort would become something of a legend and 'boogieman' to rabbits and elil in the epilogue gave him good characterization as an antagonist beyond just making him the badguy.
I loved the Netflix version. It brought a new twist on this awesome story. The very beginning when Frith bestows the rabbits gifts of speed, sight, sound, etc much better to understand. I absolutely LOVED Kehar (the bird) in this version. He was hilarious and they truly showed how he really did like Hazel et all. I wish there had been more of him. Oh! And they explained Fivers premonitions better too.
I never saw the original and tbh if you had I can see how a different approach might meet with disapproval but for me this version was epic and really made an impact on me. Would I watch the original now. No.
Having now watched the whole of the Netflix version on iPlayer I'm really not sure where to begin with it, there were so many mindless departures from the book, but here are just a few of the things which wound me up about it. 1. The characterisations of Hazel and Bigwig. As other posters have pointed out, they turned Bigwig into an asshole and Hazel into a rather diffident, ineffectual figure, at least early on in the story. In the novel, while Bigwig does have initial doubts about Hazel's leadership, he never seeks to actively undermine him and, once he has been rescued from the warren of the snares, is steadfastly loyal to him thereafter. 2. The downplaying of the relationship between Hazel and Fiver, which was so close as to be almost telepathic, in favour of a crass 'love story' between Hazel and Clover. In the book, Adams makes it clear that rabbits do not form romantic attachments. Does are barely even mentioned until they get to Watership, and Hazel realises they don't have any with them. By contrast, the brotherly love and understanding between Hazel and Fiver is at the heart of the story. 3. Turning Strawberry into a doe. This undermines the basic premise of the plot, which is that they have to risk danger by going into the farm and to Efrafa because they don't have any does. 4. The complete omission of the Pipkin character. It is Hazel's kindly concern for Pipkin and Fiver when they are struggling on the journey that first marks him out as a different kind of leader. 5. The omission of the escape from the dog in the wood before the river crossing early in the story. It is the recollection of this scene - "there's a large dog loose in the wood" - which gives Hazel the inspiration for the plan which ultimately saves the warren. In the Netflix version they are pursued by the Sandleford Owsla rather than by a dog. 6. By contrast, having included the scene in which they cross the Enborne via a makeshift raft, after which Hazel comments that it's an idea that "may come in useful again sometime," they then exclude the scene in which they cross the Test in a real raft in order to escape the Efrafan Owsla. 7. Having Holly decide off his own bat to go into Efrafa. This was Hazel's initiative and Holly, who was studiously loyal to Hazel, would never have done this. 8. Locating Efrafa in abandoned mine workings. The whole point about Efrafa was that it was a concealed warren and the reason it was concealed was because Woundwort was terrified that men would find it and infect the rabbits with myxomatosis. So to locate the warren in an actual man-made structure betrays a complete lack of understanding of the story. 9. Leaving Dandelion out of the farm dog plot at the film's denouement, when it had already been established that Dandelion was the fastest runner, and the downplaying of the Dandelion character generally, turning him largely into a foil for Hawkbit's lovesickness. 10. The seemingly pointless swapping of roles between Hazel and Fiver at the end; it was Hazel, not Fiver, who is captured by the farm cat and Hazel who is rescued by Lucy and brought to the foot of the down in a hrududu. In the Netflix version, Hazel then seems to die soon afterwards, whereas in the book he lives for several more years and (it is implied) outlives all his companions before meeting the Black Rabbit. I think that will have to do for now. In conclusion, I would say the Netflix version is a perfecly enjoyable film so long as you don't make the mistake of thinking it has anything to do with Richard Adams' story; much in the way that the recent Peter Rabbit film had nothing to do with Beatrix Potter. I don't think it will come close to replacing or even rivalling the classic 1978 animation.
I agree, for me though, not even the older adaption of the book was much like the novel. Though I may be biased as I've always loved the book as a child and only seems parts of both films.
wow you just perfectly summarised most of the points I had so now i can just show this to my sister instead of writing my own list. Personally, i made it almost all the way through the new series until almost the end where Hazel has the idea for Bigwig to tell WoundWort his chief told him to protect the warren. Almost at the end and that was the nail in the coffin for me. I immediately stopped watching. To me, that one line summarises how the new series just didnt get it.
Excellent list, let me add this part that infuriated me: when dying in Netflix version, Hazel gets invited join the Black Rabbit of Inle, rather than El-Ahrairah. (I had enough trouble watching the Black Rabbit as just a ... black rabbit in the Netflix version, should have been giant and more misty, disturbing... ) But which makes more emotional sense: for our beloved main character to cavort forevermore with Death, or with the Trickster Prince With a Thousand Enemies? Come on, Netflix, you don't have to try so hard not to be the 1978 version, you're just randomly annoying us.
Binged the BBC version yesterday, and re-watched the original today (Also a fan of the 1999 animated show, until the last season). I found that the BBC version had too many, subtle changes made that grew and grew, each one getting me more frustrated than the last. My main points were: 1). No 'Bright Eyes' cover at all. 2). Hazel's character lacking leadership. 3). No real 'brotherly relationship with Fiver. 4). The fact that there was no 'dog loose in the woods' foreshadowing from early in the story. 5). Swapping Clover for Fiver in the Bright Eyes segment. 6). The forced love story. 7). The fact that Hazel dies after few month after the battle due to infection, instead of as an old happy rabbit. 8). The 'original' 7 rabbit's indistinguishable appearances. (They done a great job of making each one different in the show.) 9). Hazel's plea to Frith to exchange his life for his peoples. 10). The story changes, such as crossing the river because of the dog, the shed scene with the owl and rats, and lacking a sense of weight and steaks to the rabbits movements and fights.
Also: The location of the Efrafan warren being smack dab in a place humans would likely find it. FIVER, not HAZEL being the one to be pounced by the cat and rescued at the end. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Hazel, with his injured leg, was able to out-pace that dog. There's no way. Not after all the time they spent making a big deal out of his leg in the previous episodes. That Dandeliion wasn't part of the dog-chase scene. He was the fastest rabbit and outside of saving them from the crows (which shoulda been rats lol) he's given literally nothing to do. Or Hazel being the one to tell Bigwig what to say to Woundwort during their fight in the burrow. That didn't work for me at all. Bigwig telling Woundwort that he's defending the run for his Chief is the one defining moment in the book and the 1978 movie that shows Bigwig fully and completely accepts Hazel as his Chief. That he'll die to defend that. I mean if you watch this and sort of detach yourself from the source material I suppose it'd be alright, but there were just a few changes that I found completely unforgivable. At least they managed to show Campion as somewhat honorable. He was one of the most likable out of the Efrafan officers in the book, after all.
So, I've never read the novel or it's sequel, nor have I seen the 1978 movie or the 1999 - 2001 series, but I really, really, really liked this series. My only critique would be, that the animation isn't the best, but after the first episode it stopped bothering me (I actually think it improved over the episodes). Aside from that, I can't think of anything negative regarding this show. It's very well written, the voice acting is great, I like the music (especially the ending song "Fire on Fire") and, what's most important to me, the main characters are all extremely loveable ... my favourite one's Bigwig, thou I wouldn't want to miss any of them :-)
You saw this under the best possible circumstances and are probably the writers target audience. Does it make you want to read the book/see the movie? That would be the icing on the cake. ♥
Read the book. Its really good. I have seen all the versions, and read the book. The only version that sucked was the 90s version. I really liked the adaptation. Sams song is great. Kenglsey and boyega did a fantastic job as woundwort and bigwig. Compared to the book it does have its flaws, but its not as horrible as these people think it is.
Since I don't really read a lot and the book is pretty long, I probably won't be reading it any time soon. Watching the movie on the other hand, is something I'd really like to do. About the series I'm not sure yet ...
@@tobiasmohr3991 Don't let the size of the book put you off! It isn't a very difficult read, even if it is long, and the story and characters are so engaging that it sucks you right in to the story. You will be doing yourself a huge favor to read it, or better yet, find an unabridged audio version of it to make it easier and listen to it.
Honestly, the Netflix version doesn't sound like one I will be watching, only because I already love the novel and 1978 version so much. I've never cried so much reading a story about rabbits, and some lines stay with me to this day. "My friend stopped running today." Gets me every time.
As someone who neither saw the 1978 movie or read the novel, I am very fond of this Netflix 2018 version and it seems that many others are. This leads me to a simple conclusion - this remake was not solely made for an already established audience but it was mostly made for a new audience unfamiliar with the original story. I am sure I will read the book one day but as for now I cannot provide a proper comparison so I will at least tell you why I think Netflix did a good job (for the new audience at least). 1) One of the main complains is that Bigwig was a lot more sensitive in the original story while in this 2018 series his sensitivity wasn't as apparent and only shown later on but I think there's a reason for that. When the first episode started and I first saw Bigwig, I had no clue he would become one of the main characters of the story. He seemed like an average hot-headed bodyguard who's full of himself and so when he appeared for the second time to join Hazel's group both me and my girlfriend were genuinely surprised that he was the one to join them. As the story progressed, we both had a hunch that he is going to betray Hazel for his own selfish needs but we were proved wrong and when his sensitivity and loyalty really did show up it sort of felt like a nice character development concerning there was so little time to do such a thing. His character did not really develop of course, but his main traits were not revealed all at once but gradually and it just worked so well for us (the new audience). 2) Kehaar was brilliantly annoying and very entertaining which made him really likeable! The fact that he seemed so selfish made for a good twist when he actually did appear to save Hazel and the others - we knew it could be coming but since he was who he was we just weren't sure whether he will show up at all. 3) The way you complained about the flashback scene which made Woundwort more symphatetic - I just feel like that was an unnecesseray complaint where you just have to pick on something that isn't the same as in the original. To me that scene didn't do much but it is always great to have a certain backstory for a character so that you can understand his behavior a bit better. Woundwort was still a terrible rabbit and I didn't really feel sorry for him but I was glad to see what made him this way. 4) The mutiny among Woundwort ranks in the Battle of Watership Down was good. A simple but effective representation of how a good rabbit can follow a bad one for the fear of losing his own life. It was also depicting how Woundwort's plan was gradually falling apart. Now some complaints I agree with even as a new fan: 1) The initial scene was rushed and I think it's pity they didn't spend a bit more time in Sandleford. While it was tragic and depressing knowing that all the other rabbits died there it is a pity there was no single character left behind that we could feel sorry for (maybe only Dewdrop but she wasn't very sympathetic just Hazel's love interest) 2) Clover was not a good character, too little time to establish her as likeable character and so her love story with Hazel seemed forced and it made Hazel look like a foolish romantic who falls in love every now and then (obviously we are disabused of this notion since we see them having a real relationship later on but still). 3) I also agree that some scenes should have been more violent. The show was quite dark but it looked like in many scenes they were pulling their punches. Then again.. I understand it's 21th century and less violence makes it accessible for a wider audience. Overall, I really liked this Netflix series and it convinced me to read the book I hadn't even known existed so hopefully I will do so soon so I could make a comparison with the original myself. As for those who read the original, I understand why you don't like it. I read the Game of Thrones book series before watching the show and while they made a pretty good remake of the original during the first 2 seasons, the differences are becoming more significant with each passing season and it's sometimes difficult for me to cope with that. However, I've learned a while ago that you always have to approach such remakes with an open mind and try not to compare every little different detail but try to perceive the adaptation as something new and focus on how the differences they made affect the story that is being presented to you. Watership Down seems to be, in many ways, a story about loyalty and this series made a very good job keeping me in doubts about characters such as Bigwig and Kehaar but it ended with them being loyal which was a great relief. The sense of unity and the way nearly every character played a major role in how the things turned out in the end were presented brilliantly too. Damn this is long... anyway this is just an opinion of a person that tries to persude the fans of the book that they should approach this series with an open mind and maybe you will end up appreaciating it a bit more. As the director himself said: “With this adaptation, I wanted to create a dramatic, cinematic experience for the series with its own original aesthetic.”
I did read all this and I totally see your side. People gotta understand that each movie and the book were made for different audiences, and they were also made by different people and they will have their own flaws. This review pointed many flaws the new version has but I bet there are many tgat you could point in the original one too(unless you are blinded by nostalgia). And for those people who basically say "you didn't see the original so you have no opinion on this", you don't know the experiences of others. This person here for example saw both the books and the series of GoT. I read the books and watched the movie of The Legend of Guardians, so we know what we are saying.
I liked it.. I mean, for someone who has not read the novel or watched the original film, it'll stick with you. You get over the animation after the first episode and focus more on the story being told. I agree that there were A LOT of changes made for theatrical reasons, I suppose. The ONE main gripe I have above all of the flaws within this version that BBC and Netflix decided to do is how they WROTE Hazel. He is supposed to be this brave, intelligent, and bold leader. In this version, he's so unsure of himself. They showcase it frequently in the first 2 episodes; as a matter of fact, I don't remember the other rabbits doubting him as much as they do in the Netlfix version.
@@StsFiveOneLima oh I apologize, I didnt mean to infer that I never watched the original or read it. I meant for anyone in general who mightve never seen or read it.
Agreed. Hazel hardly showed any leadership qualities. He was more...pushed to being leader because he led them out of Sandleford, I think. For some reason, when I was watching it, I was also thinking whether or not people who haven't read the book would see Hazel as a leader, especially since he was doubted, other rabbits took the lead or made major decisions, etc.
I thought the animation was alright tbh. Not a standard netflix and the BBC usually put out but its nothing terrible. THe only bits that made me actually say 'Oh this is bad' was the dog and birds animations. The dog looked horrible, the worst of them all in my opinion. And the birds all looked really stiff flying.
I actually really like how they did The warren of the shining wire, I liked the creepy echoing tone of the storyteller as well as the cult-like feel. But I was really disappointed Kehaar; he was a jerk the whole movie
Yup, I agree. The part with the storyteller was really good. Fiver's hallucinations gave me chills the first time. And Kehaar was written badly, I must admit. He was rude, (which he's suppose to be, but also a tough-shell-but-nice-guy-on-the-inside type, but he was a bit of a jerk.) I like how they added the bit of banter between Bigwig and Kehaar, since there were times Kehaar called Bigwig 'plump rabbit', but it was hardly a snippet of his character. Did you guys find it humorous when Kehaar constantly asked for worms, or was it..ehh?
I like your review very much - you really nailed what was so horribly wrong with this adaptation. I was so disappointed with how they treated this opportunity to make a fuller and more detailed screen version of the book; as far as I'm concerned, they threw that opportunity right in the toilet. As a huge fan of the movie but an even huger fan of the book, there are a few things I'd like to be pedantic about. :P Firstly, Woundwort's sad backstory is in the book (though it involves a weasel, not a fox), and when Hazel is trying to come to terms, Woundwort does have a moment where he sees that peace makes sense, which is subtly portrayed over a second or two in the 1978 movie. So, it was Richard Adams who made Woundwort sympathetic. He also explains a few things with Woundwort's fear of myxomatosis, which tells us why the Efrafan regime began and how it got so out of hand. No mention of that in this adaptation, though. The hrududu rescue also takes place in the book; Lucy saves Hazel from a farm cat (in the book, there's more than one cat) and the doctor, treating her mother, drives him to the foot of the down. So why have this happen to Fiver? Well, why make any crappy changes at all? Everything you say about the characterisation is totally on point: Kehaar, Hazel, Bigwig... you are so RIGHT! One thing that peed me off about the snare scene was Hazel working out for himself to dig up the peg. So what makes Blackberry so 'smart'? Given that there's no boat, and Clover herself knows how to open the hutch(!), all Blackberry does is tell everyone to get on a dustbin lid during an overstated action sequence. For me, the stay in Cowslip's warren was the one bit of potential this adaptation had, as it began to go into important details that there's too little time for in the 1978 movie. But it wasn't great, and actually I think the '90s TV series depicts this sequence best of the three adaptations. The series has its own problems and is not very true to the book, but the characterisation is pretty much there, and - as you say - the characterisation is what's so hideously wrong with this ugly series they made us wait an extra year for. Oh yes, and no Pipkin. He's an important character who spends the length of the novel gradually finding his courage. I'd have liked to see this on screen, given that time constraints make him stay wimpy in the film (and he's brave all along in the cartoon series), but no, he's not even there. So Bluebell is 'small', and he's also the storyteller, which is supposed to be Dandelion's role, and Dandelion doesn't even get to use his speed because he gets 'injured' just in time to miss the dog plan. Er, no thanks! Can you tell I'm angry? Like Bigwig. I'm angry all the time. :P
I grew up with the first episode of the old series. Sadly one day it never came out of our VHS player. The digging scene in the new series gave me flashbacks :')
I loved the 1978 movie. I was already a grown man when I saw it during the 1980s. it impressed me, because of its metaphors with human life, like teamwork to reach goals, caring and concern for each other, and the darker themes like unexpected disruption by things too big to understand (rabbits don't understand destruction by bulldozers), and bullying and fascism.
WSD 1978: A terribly beautiful bittersweet work of art. After 40 years it still patiently gnaws at your emotions and empathy. This most humble of creatures sits up in your lap, stares into your soul, and asks you the hardest of all questions about mortality and faith. Fiver hasn't flinched yet. Can we say the same?
If they tried to remake ANY scene with THAT song over it... they wouldn't JUST have people saying "CGI sucks." They would have had scorched earth reviews and riots if it wasn't PERFECT in every way. People get really touchy about those REALLY classic scenes. Best not to touch them. Same with Kehars "Piss Off!" scene. They need to TRY to make NEW classic scenes... and pray the fans are satisfied.
Honestly I grew up with Watership down. My mother grew up with it too. It didn’t traumatize me when I was small because I didn’t really know what was happening until when I rewatched it again few years was when it really affected me because I actually understood then. No matter how disturbing, the original will always be a favorite
Loved the part where the cat pins down Hazel in the old one. Was so scary as a kid. Feel they didn't develop Hazel enough. I still mist up at the end of the old one, when Hazel dies. Not to mention Woundwort was down right frightening in the 78 version.
Make no mistake. Just because a book has a subject matter that kids can get behind does NOT make it FOR kids. Stop making knee-jerk assumptions that if something has fluffy animals or that it's a cartoon - it was intended for kids. I once saw a copy of "When the Wind Blows" in the children's section at a video store. Some idiot clerk thought that a movie about nuclear war was a kiddie movie on the sole merits that it was animated. Adams never intended this to be a kids story. Just one that a smart kid can enjoy. PS: Nice review. I was really looking forward to this as the book is my favorite book. The animation is amateurish, the changes are not well thought out, to the point of stupid. How disappointing.
Even Adams said it was a book intended for kids. He wrote it at the request of his two daughters... who were kids, because they loved it when he told it as a story.
I actually enjoyed the 90's cartoon more than this, I know that version is vastly more watered down (no pun intended) but it's character development was so much better, plus it felt like this version took elements from the 90's cartoon as well as the original movie.
I honestly adore the version from 1999 but I know people that have read the book won't like it. The episodes are all on UA-cam too, I've been watching them all after I watched the Netflix one
I'm so out of it, I didn't know there WAS a previous SERIES! (I have an old dvd of Winter on Watership Down... didn't know it was a series) I have a LOT of catching up to do! I hope all the old series episodes are here on UA-cam... as well as the new series episodes from BBC?
Why didn't they do the "Bright eyes" song when hazel was shot and yes i agree why did they use Clover instead of Fiver to find Hazel Don't change the plot that's how these remakes do badly and awfulfully
Bright eyes made the original film so beautiful. It showed how beautiful and real Hazel and Fiver’s brotherly relationship was. It really emphasised how strong their bond was. Yes, fire on fire is beautiful but it just isn’t as impactful. I always find myself crying during the bright eyes scene because it reminds me of real brotherly relationships. That’s how much the song impacts people. It can actually make me fill with emotions whereas the new one didn’t do that for me. The song choices just weren’t that impactful to me at all so I agree with you totally!
I actually loved this version of the general, particularly how they explored his backstory. It made the confrontation at the end between him and the dog so much more meaningful, as you realise he is trying to redeem himself for the fear and cowardice that got his friends and family killed when he was younger.
@@JAF1970 It gives them depth, so they're not just "evil for the sake of evil." It helps one take them more seriously, see the plot in something more than just black & white, etc. But that said, that's not always necessary, & depends on how well it's done.
The original book version had a tragic backstory for General Woundwort: He & his family lived in a garden, but eventually, the gardener got angry with them & he shot his dad, dug up his home & shot most of his family. Only he & his mum survived, but his mum was injured & couldn't run fast. Unfortunately, a weasel tracks them down due to the bleeding, & Woundwort's mum attacks the weasel in an attempt to defend her surviving baby. Due to her injuries, she was easily killed by the weasel & Woundwort literally watches the whole thing in horror, from his mother's fighting, to her death & then to the weasel actually eating her. After the weasel leaves, he tried nuzzling his mother to try & get her to move again, but nothing. A teacher then sees him & picks him up & raises him. He spends most of his remaining childhood in a small hutch, with a house cat bullying him all the time at any chance it got. One day, he is able to chew through the latches of the hutch & escapes, & the cat goes to pick on him again. He snaps & finally attacks the cat, who then flees. Woundwort stumbles upon Efrafa, but it was a small, weak warren with elil everywhere. Woundwort takes over by killing the current chief rabbit & commands Efrafa to take over other nearby warrens, & abduct other rabbits outside of Efrafa (yes, Blackavar's parents are mentioned to be an abducted outsider doe who was forced to be with an Owslafan officer). Later on, Woundwort had the Owslafa slaughter a fox that got too close to Efrafa & then put its skull on display as a threat to any elil intruders. So all that lead to Efrafa becoming the overcrowded warren it ended up as. As I see Efrafa, it has this pyramid-like order; Woundwort at the top, Owslafa members next, the strong bucks with potential to be Owslafa & all the does, then at the bottom the weak bucks who are deemed useless (which the 2018 version changed to have does at the bottom, below the weak males). The 1999 series actually includes the true Woundwort backstory, but gives his mum the name Laurel (despite the pet rabbit named Laurel appearing in another episode, "The Raid"), but here, it has them fleeing a fire after being wounded from being shot by a man who burned down their warren, Darkhaven to turn it into a quarry. They become too tired to run anymore, & then a weasel tracks them down due to the bleeding & Laurel sacrifices herself to save her son. Then Woundwort is taken by that teacher & stuck in a hutch & the cat picks on him. He makes his signature growl showing he's now evil...but as a baby... The 1999 backstory has more empathy added to it as of S2 in the first episode, as Pipkin reminded Woundwort of his past due to how a weasel got both of Pipkin's parents & he's only a baby too. The 2018 version of Woundwort's backstory had a fox frenzy kill Woundwort's warren (where in reality would have just eaten only his father at the start) & then claws out his eye for no reason other than being a jerk, & the escaping the hutch thing is only mentioned in that uncomfortable scene with Woundwort hitting on Clover. The 70s movie decided not to include his backstory, for some reason. Another change this reminds me of is the Prince of a Thousand Enemies story. The book just has the fox & weasel chosen to hunt down the out of control rabbits (& was kept intact in the 1999 series). But the 70s film had the fox, weasel, dog, cat & hawk, & the 2018 version had the fox, weasel, dog, cat, hawk, wolf & many others added.
This story has had such a giant impact on me. I watched it when i was 4 or 5 and it still gives me the chills. Ive now watched 2 episodes of the netflix series and just feel nostalgia and memories flooding back. So far i love how the series is going.
Seems like the people who thought the original was designed for kids, made a remake actually designed for kids. Typically it's a remake made by people who don't really have a good grasp of the details of the original source, and that of which made it great.
I only watched the first episode of the Netflix series, I just couldn’t take any more of the awful mischaracterizations of literally every character. They had the chance to do a good, faithful adaptation of the book and instead filled it with boring cliches and standard movie tropes. I had no idea they screwed up Hazel being found by Fiver after being shot, that’s like making a LotR movie and having some random other hobbit go with Frodo instead of Sam. I really liked the cast for the Netflix show, but when I read the book I still hear the voices from the ‘78 movie. Those voices just ARE the characters. Sadly the cast being pretty good is the only kind thing I can say about the Netflix version.
so in short they made the characters one-dimensional, removed introspective moments and switched characters and genders around ignoring plot points. as usual lately it looks like they only did it so they could have a more modern (aka pc) version of a classic, making it not only less accurate but ultimately a more unsophisticated and bland story. the big draw of watership down is the interactions between the characters and the complexities, often showing some background to the "bad guys" instead of having them just be bad for no reason. as a kid it was one of the very few books that i read that invited me to think about that. here it looks like they had the intern proof read the script again, with the usual outcome. bad guys are just bad, the characters are static and do not develop over the course of their ark. on top of that some positive scenes are changed around to forcefully shove in a female heroine for good measure even if it goes directly against a major plot point afterwards, probably to collect some pc brownie points, as if a story touching so many important political topics already would need this. this is not watership down it just roughly follows the main thread of a much better story. what a shame.
@@EmilioReyes_97 yes i did - other than generally looking pretty (prettier than a 30 year old movie that is) there is little to recommend it if you know the story it is based on.
I was born in 72 and first saw this on HBO so I guess I was about 7. This movie had a huge impact on me and I can't explain in how many ways, only certain people understand. It was the first cartoon I had ever seen with blood and even a few curse words. The story was deep and moving, it stirred my soul and imagination. I haven't seen the new version but when I heard about it I was thinking it could never stand up to the old version unless they were able to use the music from the old one. The music was a very important element to me in the original. Later in life I read the book and wound up reading it about 3 times over the years after that. I guess I will watch the new one but I already hate the changes you mentioned in this video. Regardless it is nice to know it affected others lives like it did mine back then. " You stupid bunnies! You have no mates!" Ha ha. What a great story.
78 Version is way better i recommend that and the book, this is just a CGI watered down version and only made me want to watch the original instead. Ironically the place where Adams based his story really is about to make way for housing development which is sad, we will never rest until we've spoiled the earth.
I really liked this series. It was very different from the book/movie but then again if I wanted to see that story, I would just read the book again or watch the movie. Sure, not all of the changes were good ones but a lot of the changes made me more interested to see where the story was going. Not to mention that the soundtrack and voice cast were phenomenal. They toned down the blood a bit from the movie, but it actually looked a bit more realistic this time (their blood got caught in their fur like it should instead of just dripping down their faces). Sure, you can get upset over the fact that it deviated quite a bit from the original story, but if you look at it on its own it’s a really beautiful show.
dude tottaly, if you look at it on its own its fine. we dont need a step by step adaptation of the book since that would just be targeted towards people who refuse to read books
I actually really enjoyed this adaptation because it did change up the story a bit. It added an interesting twist to my childhood. I feel like a lot of the changes that were made for this adaptation were to make it separate from the book and movie.
Cynical Joker Yes, I have to agree with you on that. Especially about the romantic parts, like how they replaced fiver with clover when they were looking for hazel. That didn’t make much sense.
I grew up in the 2000’s, and this movie had a huge impact on me. I remember last year, I rewatched the 1978 version, and it actually made me cry. It’s such a powerful story, and it is for sure a right of passage, one that I’m going to give my children as well.
Hollywood just doesn't have the ability to write a movie based on a classic book nowadays that stays respectful to the literature. Always the "$$ chart $$" and "producers $$$" get involved. Things have seriously changed in the way movies and TV are written nowadays. The way that the writers write scenes, the specific cliche scenes that they always include.. It always feels like the writers in the modern movies are always.. cutting corners and just trying to shoehorn square pegs into round holes all the time. Everything has to be fast paced now. There's a lot of action shoved in. Even dialog is ramped up as most dialog is now banter, quick fire, ping-pong dialog, instead of slower dialog like what we had in prior movies and TV. Unfortunately, when dealing with a property that requires slow, thoughtful moments and deep character development, I don't know why, but the modern day writers don't seem to have the ability to write this stuff any more. They always need to change everything around. Ramp up the action. Ramp up that dialog speed. Change this character so that he's evil all the time so that people know he's evil... etc... There's so much... corner cutting now. They don't know how to write with depth or movies with... heart any more. It's like they're now assuming that the movie-going public is stupid and they're just jingling keys in front of them to keep their attention instead of giving them something to think about.
This was not done by Hollywood. It was an adaption done written and produced by the BBC themselves. Plus, there are countless actual modern Hollywood movies with heart and depth. Maybe actually look, instead of coming up with crap assumptions.
Maybe a small thing but I didn’t like when Hazel tells Bigwig to say he was guarding the run on orders of his chief rabbit. When Bigwig says that in the book he doesn’t say it’s part of a strategy, just because it’s the truth. Oh, and they left out the field mouse! “Isa no seeds from a shorta grass....”
16:05 Actually.. Before the new one came out I was a huuuge fan of the 70's film, the book, and the Tv series. I'm not that annoyed about the new film and I kinda like it. Still I understand some points such as clover finding Hazel instead of bae (Fiver best rabbit UwU) and they missed out Bright Eyes.
That moment in the '78 movie of Fiver going for Hazel, it still makes me cry today. After that scene in the Netflix version, I made the decision to not even finish it. There were so many bad choices, but that was the absolute worst for me.
I thought this Netflix series was fantastic, watched it all in a single go. I never read the book or watched the early movie version so I guess that's why I was able to enjoy it. Overall 7/10. The CGI was a bit lacking but the voice acting made up for it.
In the 78 version the crazy dog killed half the enemies rabbits but the 18 version only killed one not including the general. Don't think the 78 version had effected me in anyway even though I was about 3 when i 1st watched it.
The ending scene in the 78 movie was fantastic and absolutely terrifying really bringing home the terrible situation the rabbits were in. It's testament to Martin Rosen's adaptation and Angela Morley's outstanding score that makes the movie so impactful.
Saw part of it on TV over xmas, it's in 2 parts at least on the BBC, anyway it was dreadful, the animations look sub-par and very off in their approach, and it does not properly convey the book properly at all, especially when it came to fights and injurys, yes it does have a younger audience but that's why we had the TV series a few years ago, go show them that instead. True fans know that even the 1978 version ommited a prime sequence that involves a massive clash between 2 bunnie groups prior to Efrafa getting into the mix, the "warren takeover" battle never got made and it's a shame because it would have really helped some of the characters develop in depth personalities on whose side they were on etc, did we get it in 2018's version? Heck no, it's really inferior to the original and I just could not get into it at all
I'd strongly dislike how they turn strawberry into another hyperactive Dory clone when will filmmakers learn that nobody likes those type of characters?
My dad went back to school to get his degree when I was a little girl in late 70's. He had to read that book for his English Lit class. So he read it, did his report on it, then came home and announced "That was a good book!" then put it on the bookshelf. 7or 8 year old me decided to read it as well, if it was that good. After I'd read it I said "That really IS a book!" My dad laughed and said I was too young to understand it. I told him I understood it fine so challenged me to summarize the book. He was shocked when I did. We bonded over that book and many others. We watched the 1979 version together and liked it well enough. We hated the 2018 Netflix version. They screwed over the female characters, and as the narrator says, diminished Fiver. Terrible.
I like all versions of Watership Down(yes, even the TV series, believe it or not). But it cannot be disputed that the 1978 movie is by far the most faithful adaptation. The Netflix series falls far behind on that point, and the less said about the TV series the better.
Thank you for the heads up of this, I didn't really feel like getting "punched in the childhood" as they say on the internet haha. Seriously though, I first saw the 1978 movie when I was like 7 or 8? Read the book around that time as well. I loved it because it was brutal and magical and scary, and had deep messages that made more of a lasting impression *because* this is about rabbits, from their point of view, and life is not all innocent and fluff like we think of stories about rabbits should be. (and yes, I was a pretty deep kid lol) Not to mention that scene where Fiver looks for Hazel, and that song! Ugh...never fails to get me choked up. And now they're trying to make it into some sappy lovey dovey scene between Hazel and Clover?? Plus, you don't mess with Keehar! Nope... not watching this! lol
What I like about the book is Richard Adams having lived in that part of the world, could paint a beautiful picture of the area, and you could see feel and smell the landscapes, and he wrote it in a timeless way where anyone of any age could read it. This series however is just a really bad computer graphicy watered down adaptation where they make the characters bland and unlikable and sadly this is how many kids will probably first experience Watership Down and I can't say for certain but something tells me Richard Adams wouldn't care for this adaptation.
In the cartoon series Bigwigg is constant angry and hot headed, everyone has their own way of telling this story. To be honest, as a fan yes I did enjoy this version. Honestly? I'm surprised you did not notice simularities to the cartoon series, did you not watch that or did you dislike that too? I'll admit, I didn't quite like how they did Keyha, even in the cartoon series he was more like 78s movie
The 2018 version is brilliant. The animation is breathtaking. The plot is beautiful. Yes it’s cut down, but it’s expected from a movie/series. Yes I’ve read the book, yes I’ve seen the 1978 movie, and yes I still adore the new version.
Whatever else you think about the 2018 version, I really think "breathtaking" is just excessive to describe the animation. The landscape work is often very good, it's true, but that just makes the frankly B-grade animation of the rabbits themselves stand out all the more. The movement is poorly modelled on real rabbit movement, it's often stiff to the point of woodenness, and there are times where you can even see body parts no-clipping through each other. Very much substandard for a budget of £5 million per episode.
People who think Watership Down is Watered Down. 'HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT DREAMWORKS DID TO HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON AND TROLLHUNTERS?!?' Both of those source materials were far far far darker than the sugar coated child safe versions you got on Netflix. This 2018 reboot was really really harsh and violent when compared to those two shows and to me for someone who has seen the 90's WatershipDown I understood the changes allot more.
(SPOILERS) The most baffling change comes near the end. As mentioned in the video, during the big fight with Woundwort, Bigwig says “My chief rabbit has told me to stay and defend this run,” showing how Hazel has earned his respect. It's also a plot point, as it causes the Efrafans to imagine a larger and more terrifying chief than Bigwig. In the miniseries, Hazel TELLS Bigwig to say it. This is seemingly to make Hazel look more clever, as if it's part of his plan all along. That's nice, but in the novel, it also meant something for Bigwig's character, and here, that's gone.
The dog lure at the climax wasn't done with Hazel, BlackBerry and Dandelion, but with Fiver and Blackavar instead. Also, the animation for bob the dog is terrible. And not great either for Tab the cat. Silver and Pipkin are completely missing, and the Black rabbit of inle has been gender swapped. Overall, it wasn't as bad as I'd feared, and did enjoy it, but many story points were changed without reason, the animation was lacking in many areas and the passing of Hazel at the end wasn't as sad or as poignant.
Strawberry and the Black Rabbit of Inle were both gender swapped. But, hey, more female power!! I'm just really upset that Pipkin wasn't included. I also forgot about Silver... I also can't believe that Keehar didn't say, "Pizz off!" (How did he say it?)
That's true, since Strawberry was turned into a female, it did /slightly/ break the need for females. But, I thought when it showed Hawkbit and Dandelion fighting over her, and then Bigwig saying that that was only the beginning until they get some other does, I thought..well..it sort of made up for having a female Strawberry? I'm not quite sure. Also, they sort of left the story of Efrafra..hanging?? In the book, I'm pretty sure Captain Campion leads Efrafra, but in Netflix's version, it just looks like the Efrafrans who went to attack Watership Down...fled. Like, it didn't show what they did afterwards. Wasn't there also a male rabbit in the farm's rabbit hutch? I think his name was Haystack. I'm just a bit surprised that Clover was the only hutch rabbit they got to rescue. I thought that Hazel didn't show any leadership qualities. I mean, by the book, he does, but I was just thinking, anyone who didn't read the book, would they see that Hazel was leading them? Or would they be confused to why they see him as the leader? The scene with the abandoned and broken down building and crows was a bit...useless, in my opinion. They could have been building up more on the characters. Like, there could have been more brotherly establishment between Hazel and Fiver. I guess. In the beginning, it is shown, but later they switched Fiver's role of finding Hazel with Clover, and uh..yeah.
Spot on observations. I saw the ‘78 version on my sixth Birthday at a beautiful theater that played art and foreign films. It was February of ‘79. I remember seeing an ad for the movie on the little black and white television we had in our kitchen. I asked my parents to take me to see it, which mother thought would be a great activity for my birthday. My little brain exploded that afternoon just like it did in the late summer of ‘77 when I saw Star Wars for the first time. Just like Star Wars, Watership Down became one of the touchstones of my youth, informing and influencing me in ways both subtle and overt. It was one of the first novels I read (and reread). To say I love the story and the characters would be an understatement. I was excited when I heard Netflix was coproducing a new miniseries of the novel. My kids and I binge watched it upon its release. We agreed it was passable, but ultimately hollow. It’s quite frustrating that such a great opportunity was fumbled by unnecessary changes and barely passable animation (my daughter said it looked like the test footage they use before adding CGI characters into a film like Avengers or Star Wars). Oh well - if this film introduces a new generation of kids to Watership Down and inspires them to read the book, then that is a good thing. Great analysis - I look forward to watching more of your videos.
Then he was tormented by a cat for like a year until he killed it, vowing to kill at LEAST a thousand more. I don't there's anything wrong with a villain having a relatively sympathetic backstory. If anything, it helps us understand how they got there. And it doesn't cheapen their villainous actions.
"Missed opportunities " about sums up both versions those several decisions in the Martin Rosen version are at least commendable. Personally I would have preferred if the entire feature has been done by John Hubley in the style of his opening. I do prefer the stylization of the earlier version, though I do also commend the shadow puppet design of the opening in the new serial. And I must say that despite the power Adams words in the narration of the first version, I think that version informed the narration of the opening in the new serial because there is an emotional power there that seems deeper than the original. Unfortunately the rest of the serial looks like it was created with taxidermied department store display rabbits. The caricature of the drawn animation at least displays more emotion. What I do wish is that we as an audience were able to have more easy access to rosen's follow-up adaptation of plague dogs, and I suspect the reason it isn't out at all anymore is that it is so goddamn depressing even though it is so damned gorgeous.
Unfortunately no matter how "good" or "unique" the new adaptation is, as someone who appreciates the work for the original movie and artistic value and how they expressed such emotion through the use of animation. there is no way i enjoy the new one with such janky movement and such anti climatic visuals for all the emotional sequences, anyone who prefers it over the original, only appreciates it for how it appears on the surface, and to watch it blindly for fun, or because it is more "child friendly" people lost being able to enjoy heart wrenching animation somewhere along the way and now they just remove it from their life because it causes too much "emotional trauma" well that's part of human feelings, any animation, or work of art that can bring out an array of human emotions is what really makes a piece memorable and unforgettable. in my opinion they have made this new adaptation forgettable.
I really enjoyed the 2018 version and really appreciated the animation! I thought the 2018 version was filled with fascinating shots of the countryside. I found the changes interesting not inappropriate and I felt extremely entertained throughout the series when I first saw it on Netflix. I really appreciate Hazel's bravery and persistence and although they say Blackberry is the smartest of the group of rabbits but I personally believe that it is Hazel, purely through the way he steers his companions into trusting him and how he has faith in Fiver. As is stated Bigwig is extremely impulsive but really like him as a character.
I must be odd because I loved the new vs the original? Even having read the book before all of these. It's an engaging adaptation. Strawberry is wonderful, especially that she causes added conflict. You do seem opinionated in your video, nostalgia goggles as it were. The boat for example. Floating items were introduced, the gun to prepare us for the boat as it stands. We got a can and then a lid in one episode, the can being the lid's gun. How would you tie that in? Episodic medium is a different fish to fry. You can't just toss it in the same pot with the same ingredients and expect everything to work out fine. We need the characters to behave differently, have new dynamics, extra traits, plot elements, etc, to keep it episodic. Otherwise it's "Watership Down 1/6 full movie" and I was happy to see something new with a lot of love put into it, even if the budget shows, I got used to the design flaws after the first "chapter." Thanks for your insight but all it did was solidify the reasons the show shined brightly.
Check out this podcast I appeared on about the 78 Watership Down Movie and other 1970s animated movies! goo.gl/4uw5WJ
StoryDive
Most of your criticisms of this new remake are spot-on. But I feel compelled to ask: Did you actually read the book? I mean the unabridged version. In the book, Hazel is not a reluctant leader. He spent most of the earlier arc trying to play leader. The reason other rabbits are credited for a lot of their good fortune is because of what Bigwig, Fiver and Blackberry did. For example, in the book, it was Blackberry that came up with the idea for Fiver and Pipken to ride on the piece of wood. When Blackberry tried to explain the idea of using the piece of wood as a raft to Hazel, he didn't understand any of it. That makes sense (because he is a typical rabbit) while Blackberry is known for being smarter than most rabbits. Heck, Blackberry was even smart enough to make Hazel out to look more like a leader during that time by waiting for him to shout an order to the other rabbits. Though all Hazel said was "Swim!" The original movie made quite a few changes. And this remake made a few improvements, but honestly, the first movie is still much better. But I'm glad that made Hazel more like the book than the first movie.
Also, the General's backstory was in the book.
@@DigitalWraith Hey, sorry for the late reply. I was just browsing old comments now. Yes, I did read the book, although admittedly only once when I was very young. I wanted to re-read it before this review, but didn't have time, so I didn't really remember it as well as I thought I would. As a result, I made few glaring mistakes. You make some valid points, but I still feel like the 78 film more captures the spirit of the book even if the Netflix series does capture a few details of the book that the 78 film didn't.
@@StoryDive Well then we agree; the movie is better than the Netflix series. Just that the series is a bit more accurate in some parts.
You saw the original 78 movie? Damn you like near 50 yrs old then?
They watered it down.
Hiyoooo!
Ooooooooooooooh !
God damn it
Boom boom!
Salty Surprise Yes. Yes, they did.
Richard Adams: Produces wonderful story requiring no changes
Hollywood: We can totally improve on this!
Fans:
You can blame the brits for this one.
@@APinchofBazel But the 1978 version was made by Brits too
@@reiayanami6290
Right, but I’m saying Hollywood had nothing to do with this.
@@APinchofBazel yeah that's true
The kids show was more accurate, which was insane since in the 3rd season it went off the rails with magic and stuff.
There seems to be a huge push to eliminate 2D animation in favor of 3D. I'm not sure it's always needed, or even a good idea
Disney is in the process of making a 3D Beauty and Beast, and a 3D Dumbo, and a 3D The Lion King. I am not sure these remakes add much.
If anything, make a 3D sequel.
I agree, I miss 2D animation terribly. Although there is a difference between 3D animation and live action. ;) Mind you, since The Lion King has no humans, it's just going to be hyper realistic CGI (which although I'm not going to deny it'll look amazing, it's still pointless to me when the original hand drawn animated film is perfectly fine and should have been left alone, no remakes necessary). And live action Beauty & the Beast came out last year. You're saying Disney is making another Beauty and the Beast remake already?! =P (wouldn't put it past them at this rate, sadly).
No 3D sequels!
As for this adaptation of Watership Down, this review has cemented my decision to not watch it. I also grew up with the 1978 film and the book, watching and reading both books since I was about 7 or 8 years old. The blood and gore and all the scary imagery in the film did not traumatise me. Yes, I found it scary of course, but the story of the rabbits captivated me and I read the book so many times I wore out the pages. Children are more intelligent than given credit for and should not be wrapped in cotton wool their whole childhood, like they seem to be these days. They should be allowed to view the 1978 Watership Down, perhaps with supervision for their first viewing.
Heh, I'm a 3d animator (for games) and I miss the hell out of 2d. My lead animator had to get out of it, and into 3d several years ago, for lack of work.
I'm sometimes ok with live action remakes but they are most of the time terrible lol like beauty and the beast... But films like tangled are taking over as the new Disney style and I don't like that... I like the old drawn stuff 😒 everything looks the same now
@@LivstevMotherEarth trying to perfect perfection
I personally find it insulting to refer Cel Animation has 2D Animation
I absolutely love the 1978 Watership Down, it's one of my favourite movies! The characters were very likeable and realistic, the animation wasn't annoying and the story was a lot better portrayed.
You are right
I am a huge fan of the original, but I actually enjoyed the Netflix version. My only critiques were the animation that looks like Pixar early shorts and removing the whole sequence of the Grimm Reaper rabbit which, like you said, is the most artistic and memorable scene form the original. I still enjoyed it very much though.
The Black Rabbit of Inle
Same but doe doe doe doe doe doe doe doeS
i couldnt get through it (its a bbc one thats on netflix right?), the animation is just too ugly for words. and it's not even an idenitfiable style either, it's some half ass stock design that looks like it's from a ps2 game
I liked it quite a lot.
@@internetenjoyer1044 its a shame you couldnt get through it, or even enjoy it, I didnt read the books or watch the earlier films, but as a stand alone, the mini series is great. I like the writing, the story telling, the high stakes, and with time I got used to the animation, you can identify each character too, they have small but noticeable differences which I also enjoyed for it's realism.
I might have enjoyed the reboot a lot more if I wasn't so fond of the novel and the terrifying 70s movie. One of the stand-out issues for me is how they characterised Bigwig. He was always as confrontational character, but he was never as mean as this show has him, and he respected Hazel's leadership and judgement far earlier in the story. Part of his character was that he was kind of used to following authority because of belonging to the Owsla, so it was natural for him to fall in behind Hazel once he had proven himself a competent leader. Also he was a lot more compassionate towards the smaller rabbits like Fiver and Pipkin, and was willing to risk their initial escape attempt from Efrafa because he didn't want to leave Blackavar behind to be further abused.
Am I too attached to this big bastard bunny? Probably. But I can't help but feel a bit cheated at their treatment of a character I enjoy so much.
He was more like Zoro from One Piece.
Okay, but the books ridiculous when they all realise they are all boys and hadn’t noticed until then, no girls.
Bigwig deserves better.
No, you saw Bigwig as I did. He was my favourite character. I have yet to watch the new version, I'm humming and awing abouy it because I grew up with orginal and Keyha thr Seagull, if he's not swearing in it or cussing out the bunnies...it's just gonna ruin it..
Sitting through it, the gf and i kept saying what a dick bigwig was...
I was very confused by some of the choices in this remake. There's a scene in Part One where they cross a stream while leaving Sandelford warren, and the whole thing pauses as Blackberry notices a paint can floating downstream. I thought, "Oh, okay, they're foreshadowing the big spoileriffic scene where Blackberry figures out how to use the punt to escape with the does." But then it never happens. Likewise there's another scene where Dandelion is established as one of the fastest runners. Again I though, "Oh, okay, they're foreshadowing the big spoileriffic scene at the end where Dandelion is one of the runners in the plan against Woundwort." But then they go out of their way to point out that Dandelion *can't* do the run because he's been injured, and sub in another rabbit. The whole script is full of moments like that. It's as if someone read the source material, but then went out of their way to correct plot points that weren't actually problems.
This got me too - it's not necessarily the most heinous change, but that scene at the riverbank when they're escaping Sandleford really grated on me. In the book and 78 film, they need to cross the water because there's a dog and it will pick up their scent. Here, they're escaping owsla which makes no sense, because they're all rabbits and they can all swim!? The owsla can just follow them across the river.
That said, there were other changes I thought were good. It didn't only deviate from the book. I liked that characters like Bluebell and Strawberry were included unlike in the 78 version (though I missed Pipkin!). I thought Hyzenthlay and the does in Efrafa got some more focus and development which was good, and I didn't hate the extra character development in characters like Hazel (although this video has made me think about that a bit more). The scripting was painful in places though.
Yeah, it's like they didn't trust the perfectly crafted story Adams wrote.
more likely they were trying to deconstruct the characters based on SJW tenets. @@rooish574
@@alexandresobreiramartins9461 OP here was talking about Blackberry and Dandelion. Had nothing to do with SJW tenants--these two characters just didn't do what they were supposed to and the change made no sense (omission of the boat and having Blackavar instead of Dandelion bring the dog). I had no problem with Hyzenthlay's character development, if that's what you're upset about.
Alexandre Martins Richard Adams' painstaking world-building established naming rules for the different genders which were simply tossed aside here.
Adams was careful not to make the rabbits too human. Rabbits do not form romantic relationships in real life, and they don't in the book. The BBC version has them falling in love. It makes them seem not like rabbits at all.
No you are absolutely correct here. the rabbits didn't need to be romantic like us humans in order to be relatable or interesting. that is NOT the purpose or moral of the story. it is about avoiding one extreme to the other (domestication vs totalitarianism vs nihilism) as far as "making them relatable" to humans..... they were becoming allies with mice and birds, learning strategy and overcoming obstacles in unusual ways!!! how much more relatable do you need it to be!? As someone who has raised rabbits for over ten years the original story was just the right balance. The other great allure to this story was how it constantly pointed out the differences between humans and rabbits and other animals. the rabbits knew they were rabbits. they also recognized that deviating too far from their ... rabbitness..... was what would lead to their destruction or loss of freedom.
there are tons of other stories if for people looking for something warm and fuzzy.
@@Hy-Brasil Well don't you know? In the common era if someones pussy isn't getting wet or someones dick isn't getting hard it's not relate-able to humans... That's why the classic is superior because it doesn't change genders for the sake of political tolerance, it doesn't feel the need to overly humanise the rabbits with frivolous complexity (complexity in this case is it's downfall). General Woundwort being a symbol of oppressive force is far more impactful than making him more of a character. Categorisation and identity isn't important what is and will always be important is personality
@Stranded NYer I think the point he was trying to make was that our modern society glorifies romance/sex to the point where they won't find something good or relatable unless they involve either the two. It's quite laughable.
@@ragingrayquaza7982
Yeah, except one thing. You're not allowed to have sex in "kids" shows. Blood and guts, torture, decapitation...fine. Sex?... NOPE!
@@BlackavarWD Of course, but then again there is always romance in those disney films -_-
My biggest complaint is clover. If you want to add another female character, why would you steal over half of the only prominant female character that already exists. Hysenthlay was and is one of my favorite characters but they reduced her roll to a weak failure who had to be save by a domesticated bunny 2 days out of the hutch.
Exactly, she's such a strong character in the book
@Oddysea Cat no matter how you look at it they stole important things she did in the book and gave them to a character that had no real significance.
Paul Snyder have you ever read the book
@@Disneylover25. yes that is what my original comment was based on
I think this actually makes her a much stronger character. Because despite her looking weak Spirit would never truly broken. At least not until the very end when they tried to kill her. Actually really like how they did her character in the new version
Oof I was actually kinda excited about this remake but wHY IS IT SO DESATURATED
Like 7:46 look at those pretty colors, they make the scene far more impactful, and then we cut to the 2018 version and boom it's all gray and brown and UGH
I think it is bit dull in color. However, they wanted the 3D animated movie to have a realistic color scheme for the tunnels and such. Part of why the 2D animated movie back in the 70s had more colors was probably to better differentiate between things and to imply depth in ways 3D animations doesn't need to.
I really don't find these colors pretty, if anything seens like the animators took some LSD while making it. But I gotta agree that these colors make the scene more disturbing.
To make it.. realistic?..
Northflower i mean i haven’t seen the entire original movie but when i compare the original clip to the 2018 clip, the 2018 clip of that scene honestly makes it a little more scary especially when they do that little flash with silverweed. the grey and brown make it more realistic anyways
The British Isles are grey and drab
Woundwort's 'tragic' past (his past is explained in full detail) and a human girl saving Hazel and the adult human returning him in a Hrududu are in the book.
There is an odd but notable flaw in this version: Efrafa here is built around human stuff, clearly just to make it look more creepy for viewers, but the whole point of Efrafa is that Woundwort is overly strict about safety and wants to make sure humans won't find his warren.
I also REALLY do not understand why they didn't include Dandelion in the dog plan as he was established to be extremely fast in this version as well.
It was established that dandelion was injured so he could not participate
Kevin Okoye Oh, I didn't notice (not my native language and quiet volume to not bother sleeping people). Good to know there's a reason.
The Efrafan warren location bugged the HELL out of me in this adaption!
@@LukaTisus i liked the warren because it made it look like hell.
Yeah, but the entire drive behind Woundwort's fascist behavior was literally to avoid their warren being detected by humans. Kind of hard to do that when their warren's right in the middle of an old mill site near a town.
The CGI was awful. However the 1978 movie was also criticised for bad animation. So it may grow in time. I just miss "Bright Eyes" how can the light that burns so brightly suddenly burn so pale 😭
Really? I thought the animation in the 1978 movie was beautiful for it's time
Wow, they did not even use that famous song? Even the cartoon used it. They lost the rights or what?
The 78 was good for the 70s. The new one for todays technology is blech.
At least the animated bunnies in the 78 version had the bouncy skittishness common to rabbits in contrast to the reptilian stiffness of the 2018 version.
@@brendagriffith9238 I did do but international audiences saw it as cheap and dated due to Disney films dominance.
I feel if anyone is passionate about the original 1978 movie (as myself) you are just going to struggle with this version.
It happens think Psycho, The Wickerman? Some classics like these will never ever be justified. The only good thing is, it does raise awareness to a new audience digging out for the original to watch.
I was struggling through just this video saying that the 2018 version is just a waste of time, and I haven't seen it yet. Watership Down, the book, and the 78 movie, was one of my favorites - I grew up in the 80's and this was a definite go to(read the book 3 or 4 times watched the movie tons of times) Maybe he's right and if you hadn't seen or read the book and movie it's ok, but it's one of those once seen/read it can never be unseen/unread.
We can only hope that future generations will look up the original book/movie.
If I saw the newer Psycho FIRST... I'd be DONE with the WHOLE thing. RUINED!! We don't need to see Norman Bates masturbating. (or even hinted at) The original was art, not porn.
Watch it with an open mind. I'm a huge wd fan and i thought it was good
@@nymri8537 If you look at it as an adaptation instead of a direct translation of the book then it's passable. People are really blowing it out of proportion in my opinion. To me nothing will replace the book so there's nothing to lose. No harm in trying one episode with some popcorn. It is enjoyable to watch some of the people in these threads lose their cool over trivial things and act like experts about a book they admit to not remembering well.
They also forgot how much of the plot was changed in the first film.
I am glad I am not the only one that felt this way. I loved the novel. I read it in third grade, and read it at least once a year for years after that. The animation is not good, awkward and rough somehow. The worst thing though, is the way they rush through it. They should have spent one episode on the nightmare trip through the forest, dealing with the despair, and showing Hazel's leadership ability. They should have spent some time on Fiver's visions, on the way outskirters are treated, and the reason each of the individual rabbits choose to leave. They should also have kept true to the book as far as Bigwig's character. There was no need to change story points like the attack of crows instead of rats and the rabbits trusting the floating garbage can lid (which should have been a plank) without fear and confusion. Cowslip's warren deserved an episode of its own to do credit to the horror of living in the enemy's warren and paying his price. One of my favorite scenes was entirely cut. I love when fiver pops up with his eyes blazing and backs Bigwig down then tells Dandelion, he will tell him a story for El'ahraira to cry. Even the opening story of Frith's blessing seemed to lack the heart of the cartoon and the book. I was disappointed. Maybe if I had never read it or seen the original, I might have enjoyed it, but I just ended up yelling at the tv.
I'm with you, it's my fav book ever and I think the 78 film did as well as possible with regards to staying true to the story and the mood of the book. New version is hraka.
Third grade? Idk if I'm impressed or the BS meter is going off. I was in all the advanced classes and we never read a 600 page novel in third grade.
@@georgeford3687 LOL I read it for fun on my own, not as an assignment. I was raised in house blessed by books and readers.
In the 1978 version, Keehar screams," P*SS OFF!"
"You stoo-ped bun-nies!" Had me rolling on the ground.
“‘Don’t forget zee plan?’ I KNOW zee plan!” Zero Mostel did a great job.
Yep, don't change what ain't broken.
I don’t think that’s right
@@lmao.3661 lol
Don't fix what isn't broken.
I've come to the conclusion that all these horrible remakes are being made to make us cherish the originals more, because that's all they do for me.
That or lazy hacks just want money.
Lazy hacks who want to destroy the good things of the past.
+gen101394
Every time I find things like this, I go online to secondhand-websites and google 90's (or 80's, or 70's, or 60's etc.) stuff. Or I go to the thriftstore and buy things I wanted as a child (like a bracelet-making set) and I make the bracelet with the artistic abilities of a 27-year old.
Especially with the increasing speed of all the new movies being published, the new Iphones being made, the new programs, the new styles, the useless gadgets and the humanoid-prototypes that will be able to 'love like a human, but better' I think a large part of the people will stop 'running' and realise we're going the wrong way, by trying to love robots and hard, shiny, perfect, flawless beings with fast, hypershiny, ultra-modern capable-of-everything-items. It makes life boring.
Remastered dubbed and digi-colour-bright versions of Karate Kid, aren't nearly as entertaining as the original. It's charming to see something in it's original form.
I am happy to see there are a lot of people that realise that as well.
Maybe slightly unrelated, but based on a documentary I recently saw, about female complimentary chatbots being popular online, my aversion to modernisation has grown.
One of my biggest fears is to one day, live in a world where my human skin and emotions are worthless and 'flawed' and where the world prefers perfect robots that say exactly what everyone wants to hear.
People that would cut my conversation short and instead, go home to chat with their compliment-bot. Or having a partner that says he's leaving me, because he fell in love with a humanoid that does everything better than I do and never ages.
I like humans and I like their flaws. I like it when people blushingly admit a silly quirk of them, like people that imagine they are in a videoclip whenever they turn on a song.
Or people that are fascinated by elephants, simply because they are a dainty ballerina and love the powerful large steps that the elephants make.
Or people that collect rocks and shells or spontaniously sing together.
Widdekuu91 - You, friend, are a testament to heart and soul. I love this comment. I'm with you on all of this.
@@westminsterabbey.6916
Thankyou :) Good to hear haha. May there be many more of us around that think the same way and will cherish mortals and their human efforts! ^_^
Widdekuu91 Indeed. Here here ✊️May the human spirit never die.
I agree. Children are far too coddled lately. Death is a part of life and should never be hidden from them.
Chrisfragger1 I don’t think it’s an issue of death being hidden from them, it’s the scary way in which it’s depicted which frightens them
@@zoeparker2897 Oh... Yeah I forget, death is always clean, quiet and in your sleep.
Chrisfragger1 I didn’t mean it that way. I think it’s good to talk about death and such but showing more graphic scenes to very young children will only scare them rather than help them understand. You have to wait until they’re a little older.
@@zoeparker2897 Ok... I mean we used to see shit like Bambi's mom getting capped... And it was scary, but important. I guess we have a difference of opinion on this.
Chrisfragger1 I think the difference in those death scenes is that yes, it is heavily implied that Bambi’s mother was shot to death, but the movie never shows any graphic images of her as she dies or once she is deceased. Bambi runs at the instruction of his mother, the gunshot is heard, and Bambi slows down and realizes that she is no longer with him. Children can understand this and feel the sadness and seriousness of the topic without having to experience the raw fear which bloody scenes and direct violence on screen inflict on them. In that regard I think Bambi did a much better job of opening the discussion of death without making it too frightening for children, while Watership Down, on the other hand, was intended for older audiences but was instead labeled for children. I don’t think death scenes should be hidden from kids, I just think the blood and gore is unnecessary. They will understand better if the issue is shown to them in a less graphic way because they will not want to cover their eyes or run and hide.
The 78 version helped me understand and process my great-grandfather's death. I've been worried to watch the 2018 version due to having that connection with the movie. I'm glad you went over the differences.
Great review from someone who loves the original as much as I do. Credit to everyone who worked on the original all those years ago. It hasn't been surpassed and big studios still have a lot to learn about good storytelling.
one big missing component was "Bright Eyes" by Art Garfunkel... "Bright Eyes" IS Watership Down...
Dunno how they could have missed that. I mean, the BBC must still own the rights to the song.
The BBC doesn't own the rights to the song Bright Eyes, nor do they own the rights to the 1978 animated film, that's why it wasn't included in this adaption.
They don't have the rights to it. We did get a fantastic and haunting new song from sam smith
@@SwiftNimblefoot yeah the others are 100% BBC don't own the copyright... but in hindsight it didn't mean they could go and ask to do a cover of it... maybe they could've used some money to go to using it... instead of lining the pockets of one Ms. Jodie Whittaker so she could get that Canada Goose fur coat that she always wanted...
I think I must be missing something
2018 Watership down more like watership downgrade
Watership
Down in the quality
TheGamerGeek420 you mean watered-it-down
2018 Watered downgrade
If only their was a BIG CHUNGUS cameo...
@@BadCompanyGaming
I'm amazed I hadn't seen a reference to big chungus yet.
Well done sir, well done.👏👏👏
Didn't they switch the role of Fiver and Hazel in the end? I believe Hazel got caught by the cat and rescued by the girl, not Fiver like the 2018 version showed.
Yeah they did, that i found a bit odd as in the book/original film it's Hazel who get's caught by the cat. It's a shame Pipkin wasn't in it... really surprised by that.
They changed a lot. The opening story of Frith and Elahrairah is one.
The one that bugged me to no end though, was the scene where the rabbits have to cross the river. Book and the 1978 version both had the loose dog being their motivation, not the Sandleford Owsla chasing them. The 'loose dog' being the key element that's brought full circle to inspire Hazel to go free the farm dog and lead it back to the Down when the General attacks.
Without it, it just... I dunno. I know the crew were probably trying to throw in some more suspense but they also said they were trying to be true to the book, but they changed enough that it just wasn't.
Like the Efrafan warren being located in an old human mine, when any fan who's read the books knows how Woundwort felt about humans, being the entire reason he was so incredibly strict with how he ran things. His rabbits were forced to bury their poop like a cat, only allowed out in small groups to eat at different intervals through the day and all of that was to avoid humans discovering the warren.
Setting up camp right in the middle of a place where humans could very easily go and explore, being an old worksite, just didn't work for me.
Yeah, they changed a LOT of stuff.
Yes. It was a mistake on my part that I didn't point out it was Hazel who was rescued by the girl Lucy in the book and movie, but they switched it to Fiver in this version.
@@StoryDive I think many adaptations of long sprawling novels like this need to make compromises in the choice of characters that are allowed in the movies/series. Novels have a lot of time to develop many characters. Movies and TV have limited budgets and screen time, especially if they blow a chunk of it on big names like Ben Kingsley. As a result, less important plot points may be dropped or multiple characters will be combined or switched to improve pacing and save actor budgets.
Unfortunately, this has the effect of completely changing the nature of the characters. I think making Fiver physically heroic at the end was out of character since he was a cerebral and intuitive character in the book.
We watched this at least 100 times as kids of the eighties, still love it so much. I agree that as an adult and the happily ever after shit they put out now it's even more amazing, also with the environment we're all subjected to today it taught me so much about so many things. I'm shocked and happy that my parents had no problem letting us watch this over and over again.
Good review of the problems with the 2018 version, most of which I agree with. The worst crimes were the characterizations of nearly everyone. Obviously you pointed out Hazel, Bigwig, and Kehaar's changes were the worst. But other crazy changes included the fact that Dandelion in the 2018 version hardly had a role, and was injured so he couldn't lead the dog, Bluebell was gay for some reason, and Blackberry never came up with anything. Woundwort did, however, get a backstory in the book that made him a bit more sympathetic, like in this version, but he also came across as too cliche evil in this version. The character development for Hyzenthlay was good--in the book she was an interesting character too--but fleshing out the other female rabbits just to be love interests was stupid. But I think we are romanticizing the 1978 movie too much. For one, it was almost gratuitously violent, even compared to the book, inventing characters just to kill them (Violet) or killing ones that didn't die in the book (Blackavar). It also was so rushed, that it hardly made sense. The true horror of Cowslip's warren was not explained. The ending especially--no one got any resolution. Did Bigwig bleed to death? Did Fiver die after his little freakout on the honeycomb floor? Who the hell knows? It was too rushed to tell us.
I was soooo happy to read the book in the 6th grade and discover that Blackavar lived! I always felt so sad about that moment in the movie (which I saw first). And the part about Cowslip's warren in the movie version is so truncated as to be nonsensical. I genuinely had zero idea what that was all about and when I finally got to read the novel was really very annoyed that they'd even bothered to keep it in as this little 15-minute interlude and then cut Strawberry's character out entirely. And the addition of Violet was just plain stupid and unnecessary. (also annoyed at the absence of Bluebell and that the trip to the farm was this whole mission that nearly killed Hazel but was totally pointless as all of the hutch rabbits were recaptured... but I could live with those changes).
How did the book end? Did hazel die and what about woundwort?
@@arete7884 In the book, Hazel dies of old age, which is friggin' miraculous for a rabbit. He gets visited by a young rabbit he doesn't recognize until he realizes it's El-Arairah come to invite him to join his Owsla, so Hazel leaves his body behind (dies) and goes off with him. It's a perfect and lovely and very sad ending to the story.
As for Woundwort, he calls his rabbit officers to come back because "dogs aren't dangerous" and goes after the dog himself. They never find his body so he becomes a sort of boogeyman figure that mothers tell their babies about, "behave or the General will get you" (and a few of his former officers firmly believe he's still alive somewhere).
@@zammmerjammer and woundwort?
Why don't you people like change? You all think change is a bad thing and act like some major differences in movies, tv shows, and books will kill you. Also, are you assuming Bluebell's gay because he tried to kiss Blackberry AS A JOKE? If you would have paid attention in the 2018 version, Bluebell was known as the storyteller AND A JOKESTER. Did you know that, or were you too dramatically hurt by the changes that people purposefully made for a good reason?
Funny; I watched this series last night and I thought it was alright, some parts are odd but I found entertainment in Netflix's rendition of Watership Down.
I'm I the only one who liked the nexflix one?
flowerfoxlps gamer, I liked it. I mean, I never saw the original, but I like this one.
@@minxx. yea same
@@minxx. the original one seems more bloody
@@minxx. this version has almost nothing in common with the novel or 78 version, except character names. Please, trust me and check out both.
Also, the blood that turns a lot off is necessary. This is a species that live short, violent lives. A species that formed a society based on being prey.
Abm 1, I don’t even know how to access the 78 version. I’m aware that this newer version has basically nothing in common - a lot of people have been saying it in the comments.
13:37 ah in the book we get woundwarts backstory which does make him sympathetic. He was the survior after him and his siblings were slaughtered and had to struggle on his own to build a place for protection, unfortunately sacraficing freedom in the proccess.
Most of my complaints have been mentioned in the video or in other comments. One I haven't noticed yet, though, is that they laid the "humans are EEEEEVIL" message on thick, especially in the middle. This is contrary to the book and '78 movie, where humans aren't malicious but apathetic and blind to the consequences of their actions.
Another one, now that I'm thinking about it, is that they significantly changed Hazel's motivations for a good chunk of the story to be fear of humans. I thought they might have been trying to draw some sort of parallel between him and Woundwort, but then they ironically never go into that aspect of Woundwort's character (ironic in that they try to flesh him out, but don't go into the traits he actually had in the book).
That was obvious to me just from the trailer that they were going to be high handed about the "humans bad" message. The apathy of humanity towards the natural world is the much more important message, rather than humans maliciously destroying the homes of cute bunnies cause EVIL.
its laid on heavy in the book too
Movies back then we're made for a different generation.
I wish animation was dark now buuuuuut......... parents are too sensitive
@John Marston tell me 30 modern examples then :) I like dark and adult themed kid movies.
@@alialpaca I know that the question isn't for me but I can give you some examples. Kubo and the Two Strings is one. It's stop motion and dark/sad. Anything put out by Laika is dark. The Box Trolls. Isle of Dogs. Fantastic Mr. Fox. Of course these are all stop motion but they are still animated. If you want more darker themed "kids" movies stop motion is the best place to look outside of Japanese animated movies.
@@alialpaca the story was good even if it wasn't like the original. You just think you sound cool by saying that. Stupid
@@Ind1go404 I actually wanted to know some good dark kids movies, they're fun to watch, I...really didn't try to sound cool, I don't know where you get the idea, but I think calling someone stupid for no reason really.... Is actually, well... Stupid
@@princesspikachu3915 thank you! I'll look into them ;)
Oh the music, I missed the thoughtful compelling music. Now we have sam bloody smith.
No music can be more chilling for a scene than the strings used for when Bigwig's snared in the original '78 version.
Ugh... now I like Sam Smith but that's just typical cringe BBC
Didn't he do that whiny song for Spectre?
@@Scroteydada that's him... the male version of Adele... both decent singers but massively overhyped by media gurus trying to look edgy and relevant
justin morgan personally I think it’s absolutely a beautiful song
I don't remember all of the does being held hostage and getting branded. The last time I read the book was in college. I bought the DVD, or my grandparents did, but it had a profound impact on my psyche. Those rabbit characters were very well thought out and portrayed. These bunnies are kinda stiff. I'm watching and wondering about their motivation. And they also look more similar to American hares. One of the General Rabbit guy looked like he had a kangaroo face look to him. Just my opinion, of course. I definitely think this movie has strayed from the book, and the first movie, which I would like to see again to see if I'm not holding prejudices through my perception of time, and growing up process.
In the book they were marked and treated like second rate citizens . Bucks saw them only as breeding stock. They had no choice on mates nor freedom like in this version. Clovers scary encounter with woundwort kind of elaborated on that. The efrafens were terrible to their does in the book to the point where they were so over crowded they could no longer bear litters and were ready to start dying off. An efrafen officer could also have any doe he wanted and she had no choice but to obey him. They were under orders for mating
Dee Degon every rabbit in the Warren including owsla were marked. It was a police state. Every single rabbit was oppressed.
Wow you're beautiful and smart! 😍 😍
@@bubbastevegarcia2459 lul wot?
The reason it is like this is because Richard Adams (The books author) wrote the story and characters the way he thought animals would behave, and having rabbits talk about mates in such a way is very accurate to the animal kingdom, excellent story telling, very believable
Sigh the 2018 totally removed "Run run for your lives...Run" which leads into one of the best climatic battle. Also down played the whole film
And the "dogs aren't dangerous" line.
I think part of what makes that scene so great is the music. It's been building up with the chase and the fight between Bigwig and Woundwort, and then reaches the climax when Hyzenthlay returns to the warren with the dog on her heels (in the book it's Blackberry and Dandelion).
@@84cch It fit well with Woundwort's character. Groundsel at the end of the book and Campion in the sequel describe why Woundwort was held in such high awe and fear in Efrafa even while his restricted policies created such unrest. That Woundwort would become something of a legend and 'boogieman' to rabbits and elil in the epilogue gave him good characterization as an antagonist beyond just making him the badguy.
Mark Lyne
It's just, "run for your lives"
Never mind, you right
Watched this as a child in the early 80s , and has remained my favourite movie of all time. Nothing beats the original .
I loved the Netflix version. It brought a new twist on this awesome story. The very beginning when Frith bestows the rabbits gifts of speed, sight, sound, etc much better to understand. I absolutely LOVED Kehar (the bird) in this version. He was hilarious and they truly showed how he really did like Hazel et all. I wish there had been more of him. Oh! And they explained Fivers premonitions better too.
AGreed! I loved it too!!!
I never saw the original and tbh if you had I can see how a different approach might meet with disapproval but for me this version was epic and really made an impact on me. Would I watch the original now. No.
Idk I liked the book the best
I Nearly cried when it was over, thats how good it was ;,(
People used their heads back in the day and didn't need everything over-explained xD
Having now watched the whole of the Netflix version on iPlayer I'm really not sure where to begin with it, there were so many mindless departures from the book, but here are just a few of the things which wound me up about it.
1. The characterisations of Hazel and Bigwig. As other posters have pointed out, they turned Bigwig into an asshole and Hazel into a rather diffident, ineffectual figure, at least early on in the story. In the novel, while Bigwig does have initial doubts about Hazel's leadership, he never seeks to actively undermine him and, once he has been rescued from the warren of the snares, is steadfastly loyal to him thereafter.
2. The downplaying of the relationship between Hazel and Fiver, which was so close as to be almost telepathic, in favour of a crass 'love story' between Hazel and Clover. In the book, Adams makes it clear that rabbits do not form romantic attachments. Does are barely even mentioned until they get to Watership, and Hazel realises they don't have any with them. By contrast, the brotherly love and understanding between Hazel and Fiver is at the heart of the story.
3. Turning Strawberry into a doe. This undermines the basic premise of the plot, which is that they have to risk danger by going into the farm and to Efrafa because they don't have any does.
4. The complete omission of the Pipkin character. It is Hazel's kindly concern for Pipkin and Fiver when they are struggling on the journey that first marks him out as a different kind of leader.
5. The omission of the escape from the dog in the wood before the river crossing early in the story. It is the recollection of this scene - "there's a large dog loose in the wood" - which gives Hazel the inspiration for the plan which ultimately saves the warren. In the Netflix version they are pursued by the Sandleford Owsla rather than by a dog.
6. By contrast, having included the scene in which they cross the Enborne via a makeshift raft, after which Hazel comments that it's an idea that "may come in useful again sometime," they then exclude the scene in which they cross the Test in a real raft in order to escape the Efrafan Owsla.
7. Having Holly decide off his own bat to go into Efrafa. This was Hazel's initiative and Holly, who was studiously loyal to Hazel, would never have done this.
8. Locating Efrafa in abandoned mine workings. The whole point about Efrafa was that it was a concealed warren and the reason it was concealed was because Woundwort was terrified that men would find it and infect the rabbits with myxomatosis. So to locate the warren in an actual man-made structure betrays a complete lack of understanding of the story.
9. Leaving Dandelion out of the farm dog plot at the film's denouement, when it had already been established that Dandelion was the fastest runner, and the downplaying of the Dandelion character generally, turning him largely into a foil for Hawkbit's lovesickness.
10. The seemingly pointless swapping of roles between Hazel and Fiver at the end; it was Hazel, not Fiver, who is captured by the farm cat and Hazel who is rescued by Lucy and brought to the foot of the down in a hrududu. In the Netflix version, Hazel then seems to die soon afterwards, whereas in the book he lives for several more years and (it is implied) outlives all his companions before meeting the Black Rabbit.
I think that will have to do for now. In conclusion, I would say the Netflix version is a perfecly enjoyable film so long as you don't make the mistake of thinking it has anything to do with Richard Adams' story; much in the way that the recent Peter Rabbit film had nothing to do with Beatrix Potter. I don't think it will come close to replacing or even rivalling the classic 1978 animation.
I agree, for me though, not even the older adaption of the book was much like the novel. Though I may be biased as I've always loved the book as a child and only seems parts of both films.
wow you just perfectly summarised most of the points I had so now i can just show this to my sister instead of writing my own list. Personally, i made it almost all the way through the new series until almost the end where Hazel has the idea for Bigwig to tell WoundWort his chief told him to protect the warren. Almost at the end and that was the nail in the coffin for me. I immediately stopped watching. To me, that one line summarises how the new series just didnt get it.
Excellent list, let me add this part that infuriated me: when dying in Netflix version, Hazel gets invited join the Black Rabbit of Inle, rather than El-Ahrairah. (I had enough trouble watching the Black Rabbit as just a ... black rabbit in the Netflix version, should have been giant and more misty, disturbing... ) But which makes more emotional sense: for our beloved main character to cavort forevermore with Death, or with the Trickster Prince With a Thousand Enemies? Come on, Netflix, you don't have to try so hard not to be the 1978 version, you're just randomly annoying us.
Binged the BBC version yesterday, and re-watched the original today (Also a fan of the 1999 animated show, until the last season). I found that the BBC version had too many, subtle changes made that grew and grew, each one getting me more frustrated than the last.
My main points were:
1). No 'Bright Eyes' cover at all.
2). Hazel's character lacking leadership.
3). No real 'brotherly relationship with Fiver.
4). The fact that there was no 'dog loose in the woods' foreshadowing from early in the story.
5). Swapping Clover for Fiver in the Bright Eyes segment.
6). The forced love story.
7). The fact that Hazel dies after few month after the battle due to infection, instead of as an old happy rabbit.
8). The 'original' 7 rabbit's indistinguishable appearances. (They done a great job of making each one different in the show.)
9). Hazel's plea to Frith to exchange his life for his peoples.
10). The story changes, such as crossing the river because of the dog, the shed scene with the owl and rats, and lacking a sense of weight and steaks to the rabbits movements and fights.
the forced lovestory killed me, as well as swapping fiver and clover. I enjoyed it as a remake, though.
I found the electric train towards the end of this new BBC adaptation to be really disturbing. It took away from the story's timelessness.
Also: The location of the Efrafan warren being smack dab in a place humans would likely find it.
FIVER, not HAZEL being the one to be pounced by the cat and rescued at the end. I find it incredibly hard to believe that Hazel, with his injured leg, was able to out-pace that dog. There's no way. Not after all the time they spent making a big deal out of his leg in the previous episodes.
That Dandeliion wasn't part of the dog-chase scene. He was the fastest rabbit and outside of saving them from the crows (which shoulda been rats lol) he's given literally nothing to do.
Or Hazel being the one to tell Bigwig what to say to Woundwort during their fight in the burrow.
That didn't work for me at all. Bigwig telling Woundwort that he's defending the run for his Chief is the one defining moment in the book and the 1978 movie that shows Bigwig fully and completely accepts Hazel as his Chief. That he'll die to defend that.
I mean if you watch this and sort of detach yourself from the source material I suppose it'd be alright, but there were just a few changes that I found completely unforgivable.
At least they managed to show Campion as somewhat honorable. He was one of the most likable out of the Efrafan officers in the book, after all.
Also by not foreshadowing the dog they risked transforming it into a Deus Ex Machina. That's a shame.
I was VERY disappointed that they took out Hazel's plea. It was a PERFECT scene from the original, and made Hazel even better as a character.
So, I've never read the novel or it's sequel, nor have I seen the 1978 movie or the 1999 - 2001 series, but I really, really, really liked this series. My only critique would be, that the animation isn't the best, but after the first episode it stopped bothering me (I actually think it improved over the episodes). Aside from that, I can't think of anything negative regarding this show. It's very well written, the voice acting is great, I like the music (especially the ending song "Fire on Fire") and, what's most important to me, the main characters are all extremely loveable ... my favourite one's Bigwig, thou I wouldn't want to miss any of them :-)
You saw this under the best possible circumstances and are probably the writers target audience. Does it make you want to read the book/see the movie? That would be the icing on the cake. ♥
Read the book. Its really good. I have seen all the versions, and read the book. The only version that sucked was the 90s version. I really liked the adaptation. Sams song is great. Kenglsey and boyega did a fantastic job as woundwort and bigwig.
Compared to the book it does have its flaws, but its not as horrible as these people think it is.
Since I don't really read a lot and the book is pretty long, I probably won't be reading it any time soon. Watching the movie on the other hand, is something I'd really like to do. About the series I'm not sure yet ...
@@tobiasmohr3991 Don't let the size of the book put you off! It isn't a very difficult read, even if it is long, and the story and characters are so engaging that it sucks you right in to the story. You will be doing yourself a huge favor to read it, or better yet, find an unabridged audio version of it to make it easier and listen to it.
Watch the ‘78 cartoon. I felt a bit cheated watching the Netflix reincarnation. It was still enjoyable but you can’t beat the cartoon movie.
Honestly, the Netflix version doesn't sound like one I will be watching, only because I already love the novel and 1978 version so much. I've never cried so much reading a story about rabbits, and some lines stay with me to this day. "My friend stopped running today." Gets me every time.
As someone who neither saw the 1978 movie or read the novel, I am very fond of this Netflix 2018 version and it seems that many others are. This leads me to a simple conclusion - this remake was not solely made for an already established audience but it was mostly made for a new audience unfamiliar with the original story. I am sure I will read the book one day but as for now I cannot provide a proper comparison so I will at least tell you why I think Netflix did a good job (for the new audience at least). 1) One of the main complains is that Bigwig was a lot more sensitive in the original story while in this 2018 series his sensitivity wasn't as apparent and only shown later on but I think there's a reason for that. When the first episode started and I first saw Bigwig, I had no clue he would become one of the main characters of the story. He seemed like an average hot-headed bodyguard who's full of himself and so when he appeared for the second time to join Hazel's group both me and my girlfriend were genuinely surprised that he was the one to join them. As the story progressed, we both had a hunch that he is going to betray Hazel for his own selfish needs but we were proved wrong and when his sensitivity and loyalty really did show up it sort of felt like a nice character development concerning there was so little time to do such a thing. His character did not really develop of course, but his main traits were not revealed all at once but gradually and it just worked so well for us (the new audience). 2) Kehaar was brilliantly annoying and very entertaining which made him really likeable! The fact that he seemed so selfish made for a good twist when he actually did appear to save Hazel and the others - we knew it could be coming but since he was who he was we just weren't sure whether he will show up at all. 3) The way you complained about the flashback scene which made Woundwort more symphatetic - I just feel like that was an unnecesseray complaint where you just have to pick on something that isn't the same as in the original. To me that scene didn't do much but it is always great to have a certain backstory for a character so that you can understand his behavior a bit better. Woundwort was still a terrible rabbit and I didn't really feel sorry for him but I was glad to see what made him this way. 4) The mutiny among Woundwort ranks in the Battle of Watership Down was good. A simple but effective representation of how a good rabbit can follow a bad one for the fear of losing his own life. It was also depicting how Woundwort's plan was gradually falling apart.
Now some complaints I agree with even as a new fan: 1) The initial scene was rushed and I think it's pity they didn't spend a bit more time in Sandleford. While it was tragic and depressing knowing that all the other rabbits died there it is a pity there was no single character left behind that we could feel sorry for (maybe only Dewdrop but she wasn't very sympathetic just Hazel's love interest) 2) Clover was not a good character, too little time to establish her as likeable character and so her love story with Hazel seemed forced and it made Hazel look like a foolish romantic who falls in love every now and then (obviously we are disabused of this notion since we see them having a real relationship later on but still). 3) I also agree that some scenes should have been more violent. The show was quite dark but it looked like in many scenes they were pulling their punches. Then again.. I understand it's 21th century and less violence makes it accessible for a wider audience.
Overall, I really liked this Netflix series and it convinced me to read the book I hadn't even known existed so hopefully I will do so soon so I could make a comparison with the original myself. As for those who read the original, I understand why you don't like it. I read the Game of Thrones book series before watching the show and while they made a pretty good remake of the original during the first 2 seasons, the differences are becoming more significant with each passing season and it's sometimes difficult for me to cope with that. However, I've learned a while ago that you always have to approach such remakes with an open mind and try not to compare every little different detail but try to perceive the adaptation as something new and focus on how the differences they made affect the story that is being presented to you. Watership Down seems to be, in many ways, a story about loyalty and this series made a very good job keeping me in doubts about characters such as Bigwig and Kehaar but it ended with them being loyal which was a great relief. The sense of unity and the way nearly every character played a major role in how the things turned out in the end were presented brilliantly too.
Damn this is long... anyway this is just an opinion of a person that tries to persude the fans of the book that they should approach this series with an open mind and maybe you will end up appreaciating it a bit more. As the director himself said: “With this adaptation, I wanted to create a dramatic, cinematic experience for the series with its own original aesthetic.”
Nobody gonna read that...
@@user-xk5rl1nc5z I am not even surprised you're saying that. It's so long...
@@Marviczekpusiczek Just kidding I didn't want to offend you
@@user-xk5rl1nc5z That's alright man, I am not offended. :) It's probably my longest comment ever so...
I did read all this and I totally see your side. People gotta understand that each movie and the book were made for different audiences, and they were also made by different people and they will have their own flaws. This review pointed many flaws the new version has but I bet there are many tgat you could point in the original one too(unless you are blinded by nostalgia).
And for those people who basically say "you didn't see the original so you have no opinion on this", you don't know the experiences of others. This person here for example saw both the books and the series of GoT. I read the books and watched the movie of The Legend of Guardians, so we know what we are saying.
I liked it.. I mean, for someone who has not read the novel or watched the original film, it'll stick with you. You get over the animation after the first episode and focus more on the story being told. I agree that there were A LOT of changes made for theatrical reasons, I suppose. The ONE main gripe I have above all of the flaws within this version that BBC and Netflix decided to do is how they WROTE Hazel. He is supposed to be this brave, intelligent, and bold leader. In this version, he's so unsure of himself. They showcase it frequently in the first 2 episodes; as a matter of fact, I don't remember the other rabbits doubting him as much as they do in the Netlfix version.
"I liked it.. I mean, for someone who has not read the novel or watched the original film" Well......
@@StsFiveOneLima oh I apologize, I didnt mean to infer that I never watched the original or read it. I meant for anyone in general who mightve never seen or read it.
Agreed. Hazel hardly showed any leadership qualities. He was more...pushed to being leader because he led them out of Sandleford, I think. For some reason, when I was watching it, I was also thinking whether or not people who haven't read the book would see Hazel as a leader, especially since he was doubted, other rabbits took the lead or made major decisions, etc.
I thought the animation was alright tbh. Not a standard netflix and the BBC usually put out but its nothing terrible. THe only bits that made me actually say 'Oh this is bad' was the dog and birds animations. The dog looked horrible, the worst of them all in my opinion. And the birds all looked really stiff flying.
deuxytuk watch all three versions and read it
I actually really like how they did The warren of the shining wire, I liked the creepy echoing tone of the storyteller as well as the cult-like feel. But I was really disappointed Kehaar; he was a jerk the whole movie
Ugh god, yes, a real douche all because of his accent lol
Yup, I agree. The part with the storyteller was really good. Fiver's hallucinations gave me chills the first time.
And Kehaar was written badly, I must admit. He was rude, (which he's suppose to be, but also a tough-shell-but-nice-guy-on-the-inside type, but he was a bit of a jerk.) I like how they added the bit of banter between Bigwig and Kehaar, since there were times Kehaar called Bigwig 'plump rabbit', but it was hardly a snippet of his character. Did you guys find it humorous when Kehaar constantly asked for worms, or was it..ehh?
I like your review very much - you really nailed what was so horribly wrong with this adaptation. I was so disappointed with how they treated this opportunity to make a fuller and more detailed screen version of the book; as far as I'm concerned, they threw that opportunity right in the toilet.
As a huge fan of the movie but an even huger fan of the book, there are a few things I'd like to be pedantic about. :P Firstly, Woundwort's sad backstory is in the book (though it involves a weasel, not a fox), and when Hazel is trying to come to terms, Woundwort does have a moment where he sees that peace makes sense, which is subtly portrayed over a second or two in the 1978 movie. So, it was Richard Adams who made Woundwort sympathetic. He also explains a few things with Woundwort's fear of myxomatosis, which tells us why the Efrafan regime began and how it got so out of hand. No mention of that in this adaptation, though.
The hrududu rescue also takes place in the book; Lucy saves Hazel from a farm cat (in the book, there's more than one cat) and the doctor, treating her mother, drives him to the foot of the down. So why have this happen to Fiver? Well, why make any crappy changes at all?
Everything you say about the characterisation is totally on point: Kehaar, Hazel, Bigwig... you are so RIGHT! One thing that peed me off about the snare scene was Hazel working out for himself to dig up the peg. So what makes Blackberry so 'smart'? Given that there's no boat, and Clover herself knows how to open the hutch(!), all Blackberry does is tell everyone to get on a dustbin lid during an overstated action sequence.
For me, the stay in Cowslip's warren was the one bit of potential this adaptation had, as it began to go into important details that there's too little time for in the 1978 movie. But it wasn't great, and actually I think the '90s TV series depicts this sequence best of the three adaptations. The series has its own problems and is not very true to the book, but the characterisation is pretty much there, and - as you say - the characterisation is what's so hideously wrong with this ugly series they made us wait an extra year for.
Oh yes, and no Pipkin. He's an important character who spends the length of the novel gradually finding his courage. I'd have liked to see this on screen, given that time constraints make him stay wimpy in the film (and he's brave all along in the cartoon series), but no, he's not even there. So Bluebell is 'small', and he's also the storyteller, which is supposed to be Dandelion's role, and Dandelion doesn't even get to use his speed because he gets 'injured' just in time to miss the dog plan. Er, no thanks!
Can you tell I'm angry? Like Bigwig. I'm angry all the time. :P
LMAO Well said!
I grew up with the first episode of the old series. Sadly one day it never came out of our VHS player. The digging scene in the new series gave me flashbacks :')
I loved the 1978 movie. I was already a grown man when I saw it during the 1980s. it impressed me, because of its metaphors with human life, like teamwork to reach goals, caring and concern for each other, and the darker themes like unexpected disruption by things too big to understand (rabbits don't understand destruction by bulldozers), and bullying and fascism.
WSD 1978: A terribly beautiful bittersweet work of art. After 40 years it still patiently gnaws at your emotions and empathy. This most humble of creatures sits up in your lap, stares into your soul, and asks you the hardest of all questions about mortality and faith. Fiver hasn't flinched yet. Can we say the same?
God I hate doing this for a movie that traumatized me, but Woundwort's backstory and epilogue are in the novel.
You can’t leave out “Bright Eyes!!”
If they tried to remake ANY scene with THAT song over it... they wouldn't JUST have people saying "CGI sucks." They would have had scorched earth reviews and riots if it wasn't PERFECT in every way. People get really touchy about those REALLY classic scenes. Best not to touch them. Same with Kehars "Piss Off!" scene. They need to TRY to make NEW classic scenes... and pray the fans are satisfied.
10:13 this quote needs to become a meme
Honestly I grew up with Watership down. My mother grew up with it too. It didn’t traumatize me when I was small because I didn’t really know what was happening until when I rewatched it again few years was when it really affected me because I actually understood then. No matter how disturbing, the original will always be a favorite
Loved the part where the cat pins down Hazel in the old one. Was so scary as a kid. Feel they didn't develop Hazel enough. I still mist up at the end of the old one, when Hazel dies. Not to mention Woundwort was down right frightening in the 78 version.
Make no mistake. Just because a book has a subject matter that kids can get behind does NOT make it FOR kids. Stop making knee-jerk assumptions that if something has fluffy animals or that it's a cartoon - it was intended for kids. I once saw a copy of "When the Wind Blows" in the children's section at a video store. Some idiot clerk thought that a movie about nuclear war was a kiddie movie on the sole merits that it was animated. Adams never intended this to be a kids story. Just one that a smart kid can enjoy.
PS: Nice review. I was really looking forward to this as the book is my favorite book. The animation is amateurish, the changes are not well thought out, to the point of stupid. How disappointing.
You're coddled and are a weak pussy
He told this story to his kids. You have no clue what you're talking about
Tony Fontaine telling it to someone with words is diffrent then showing it with moving pictures?
@@RykerAccardi no, not at all.
Even Adams said it was a book intended for kids. He wrote it at the request of his two daughters... who were kids, because they loved it when he told it as a story.
I actually enjoyed the 90's cartoon more than this, I know that version is vastly more watered down (no pun intended) but it's character development was so much better, plus it felt like this version took elements from the 90's cartoon as well as the original movie.
That version is the best, IMHO. I love that series.
I honestly adore the version from 1999 but I know people that have read the book won't like it. The episodes are all on UA-cam too, I've been watching them all after I watched the Netflix one
I'm so out of it, I didn't know there WAS a previous SERIES! (I have an old dvd of Winter on Watership Down... didn't know it was a series) I have a LOT of catching up to do! I hope all the old series episodes are here on UA-cam... as well as the new series episodes from BBC?
+Rue The Weenie I've read the book and I liked the 90's cartoon.
Why didn't they do the "Bright eyes" song when hazel was shot and yes i agree why did they use Clover instead of Fiver to find Hazel Don't change the plot that's how these remakes do badly and awfulfully
Wasn't that from when the rabbit passed over naturally?
they dont have the rights to it. sam smiths song is just as good. so is the one the does sing
Copyriiiight
Bright eyes made the original film so beautiful. It showed how beautiful and real Hazel and Fiver’s brotherly relationship was. It really emphasised how strong their bond was. Yes, fire on fire is beautiful but it just isn’t as impactful. I always find myself crying during the bright eyes scene because it reminds me of real brotherly relationships. That’s how much the song impacts people. It can actually make me fill with emotions whereas the new one didn’t do that for me. The song choices just weren’t that impactful to me at all so I agree with you totally!
They even had Bright Eyes as the intro or outro for the first season of the 2000 cartoon TV-show.
I actually loved this version of the general, particularly how they explored his backstory. It made the confrontation at the end between him and the dog so much more meaningful, as you realise he is trying to redeem himself for the fear and cowardice that got his friends and family killed when he was younger.
Why does the villain need a back story?
I found his final line much more fitting in the remake. "I fear nothing."
@@JAF1970 It gives them depth, so they're not just "evil for the sake of evil." It helps one take them more seriously, see the plot in something more than just black & white, etc. But that said, that's not always necessary, & depends on how well it's done.
The original book version had a tragic backstory for General Woundwort:
He & his family lived in a garden, but eventually, the gardener got angry with them & he shot his dad, dug up his home & shot most of his family. Only he & his mum survived, but his mum was injured & couldn't run fast.
Unfortunately, a weasel tracks them down due to the bleeding, & Woundwort's mum attacks the weasel in an attempt to defend her surviving baby. Due to her injuries, she was easily killed by the weasel & Woundwort literally watches the whole thing in horror, from his mother's fighting, to her death & then to the weasel actually eating her.
After the weasel leaves, he tried nuzzling his mother to try & get her to move again, but nothing.
A teacher then sees him & picks him up & raises him. He spends most of his remaining childhood in a small hutch, with a house cat bullying him all the time at any chance it got.
One day, he is able to chew through the latches of the hutch & escapes, & the cat goes to pick on him again. He snaps & finally attacks the cat, who then flees.
Woundwort stumbles upon Efrafa, but it was a small, weak warren with elil everywhere. Woundwort takes over by killing the current chief rabbit & commands Efrafa to take over other nearby warrens, & abduct other rabbits outside of Efrafa (yes, Blackavar's parents are mentioned to be an abducted outsider doe who was forced to be with an Owslafan officer).
Later on, Woundwort had the Owslafa slaughter a fox that got too close to Efrafa & then put its skull on display as a threat to any elil intruders.
So all that lead to Efrafa becoming the overcrowded warren it ended up as.
As I see Efrafa, it has this pyramid-like order; Woundwort at the top, Owslafa members next, the strong bucks with potential to be Owslafa & all the does, then at the bottom the weak bucks who are deemed useless (which the 2018 version changed to have does at the bottom, below the weak males).
The 1999 series actually includes the true Woundwort backstory, but gives his mum the name Laurel (despite the pet rabbit named Laurel appearing in another episode, "The Raid"), but here, it has them fleeing a fire after being wounded from being shot by a man who burned down their warren, Darkhaven to turn it into a quarry. They become too tired to run anymore, & then a weasel tracks them down due to the bleeding & Laurel sacrifices herself to save her son.
Then Woundwort is taken by that teacher & stuck in a hutch & the cat picks on him. He makes his signature growl showing he's now evil...but as a baby...
The 1999 backstory has more empathy added to it as of S2 in the first episode, as Pipkin reminded Woundwort of his past due to how a weasel got both of Pipkin's parents & he's only a baby too.
The 2018 version of Woundwort's backstory had a fox frenzy kill Woundwort's warren (where in reality would have just eaten only his father at the start) & then claws out his eye for no reason other than being a jerk, & the escaping the hutch thing is only mentioned in that uncomfortable scene with Woundwort hitting on Clover.
The 70s movie decided not to include his backstory, for some reason.
Another change this reminds me of is the Prince of a Thousand Enemies story. The book just has the fox & weasel chosen to hunt down the out of control rabbits (& was kept intact in the 1999 series). But the 70s film had the fox, weasel, dog, cat & hawk, & the 2018 version had the fox, weasel, dog, cat, hawk, wolf & many others added.
This story has had such a giant impact on me. I watched it when i was 4 or 5 and it still gives me the chills. Ive now watched 2 episodes of the netflix series and just feel nostalgia and memories flooding back. So far i love how the series is going.
Seems like the people who thought the original was designed for kids, made a remake actually designed for kids. Typically it's a remake made by people who don't really have a good grasp of the details of the original source, and that of which made it great.
I disagree
I only watched the first episode of the Netflix series, I just couldn’t take any more of the awful mischaracterizations of literally every character. They had the chance to do a good, faithful adaptation of the book and instead filled it with boring cliches and standard movie tropes.
I had no idea they screwed up Hazel being found by Fiver after being shot, that’s like making a LotR movie and having some random other hobbit go with Frodo instead of Sam.
I really liked the cast for the Netflix show, but when I read the book I still hear the voices from the ‘78 movie. Those voices just ARE the characters. Sadly the cast being pretty good is the only kind thing I can say about the Netflix version.
so in short they made the characters one-dimensional, removed introspective moments and switched characters and genders around ignoring plot points.
as usual lately it looks like they only did it so they could have a more modern (aka pc) version of a classic, making it not only less accurate but ultimately a more unsophisticated and bland story.
the big draw of watership down is the interactions between the characters and the complexities, often showing some background to the "bad guys" instead of having them just be bad for no reason. as a kid it was one of the very few books that i read that invited me to think about that.
here it looks like they had the intern proof read the script again, with the usual outcome. bad guys are just bad, the characters are static and do not develop over the course of their ark. on top of that some positive scenes are changed around to forcefully shove in a female heroine for good measure even if it goes directly against a major plot point afterwards, probably to collect some pc brownie points, as if a story touching so many important political topics already would need this.
this is not watership down it just roughly follows the main thread of a much better story.
what a shame.
Dude have you even took the time to watch it?
@@EmilioReyes_97 yes i did - other than generally looking pretty (prettier than a 30 year old movie that is) there is little to recommend it if you know the story it is based on.
Agreed, though I think the book is pretty progressive and has strong female characters that didn't need shoehorning.
To be honest. I love the newer version. Mostly because I like to eat while watching. Watching both movies this year I love both. Nice review pal!
I was born in 72 and first saw this on HBO so I guess I was about 7. This movie had a huge impact on me and I can't explain in how many
ways, only certain people understand. It was the first cartoon I had ever seen with blood and even a few curse words. The story was deep and moving, it stirred my soul and imagination. I haven't seen the new version but when I heard about it I was thinking it could never stand up to the old version unless they were able to use the music from the old one. The music was a very important element to me in the original. Later in life I read the book and wound up reading it about 3 times over the years after that. I guess I will watch the new one but I already hate the changes you mentioned in this video. Regardless it is nice to know it affected others lives like it did mine back then. " You stupid bunnies! You have no mates!" Ha ha. What a great story.
Cant beat the classic.
Chris James for me can't beat the book, hopefully someday they'll produce something that keeps all fans of book and movie happy!
78 Version is way better i recommend that and the book, this is just a CGI watered down version and only made me want to watch the original instead. Ironically the place where Adams based his story really is about to make way for housing development which is sad, we will never rest until we've spoiled the earth.
I really liked this series. It was very different from the book/movie but then again if I wanted to see that story, I would just read the book again or watch the movie. Sure, not all of the changes were good ones but a lot of the changes made me more interested to see where the story was going. Not to mention that the soundtrack and voice cast were phenomenal. They toned down the blood a bit from the movie, but it actually looked a bit more realistic this time (their blood got caught in their fur like it should instead of just dripping down their faces). Sure, you can get upset over the fact that it deviated quite a bit from the original story, but if you look at it on its own it’s a really beautiful show.
dude tottaly, if you look at it on its own its fine. we dont need a step by step adaptation of the book since that would just be targeted towards people who refuse to read books
I actually really enjoyed this adaptation because it did change up the story a bit. It added an interesting twist to my childhood. I feel like a lot of the changes that were made for this adaptation were to make it separate from the book and movie.
Cynical Joker Yes, I have to agree with you on that. Especially about the romantic parts, like how they replaced fiver with clover when they were looking for hazel. That didn’t make much sense.
Yeah, I love Clover, but why did she have to be the one looking for Hazel? That's Fiver's role.
As a 70's kid, I can't relate how significant an impact this film, along with Bakshi's LOTR, had on us. An era in animation that will not come again.
I grew up in the 2000’s, and this movie had a huge impact on me. I remember last year, I rewatched the 1978 version, and it actually made me cry. It’s such a powerful story, and it is for sure a right of passage, one that I’m going to give my children as well.
Hollywood just doesn't have the ability to write a movie based on a classic book nowadays that stays respectful to the literature. Always the "$$ chart $$" and "producers $$$" get involved. Things have seriously changed in the way movies and TV are written nowadays. The way that the writers write scenes, the specific cliche scenes that they always include.. It always feels like the writers in the modern movies are always.. cutting corners and just trying to shoehorn square pegs into round holes all the time. Everything has to be fast paced now. There's a lot of action shoved in. Even dialog is ramped up as most dialog is now banter, quick fire, ping-pong dialog, instead of slower dialog like what we had in prior movies and TV. Unfortunately, when dealing with a property that requires slow, thoughtful moments and deep character development, I don't know why, but the modern day writers don't seem to have the ability to write this stuff any more. They always need to change everything around. Ramp up the action. Ramp up that dialog speed. Change this character so that he's evil all the time so that people know he's evil... etc... There's so much... corner cutting now. They don't know how to write with depth or movies with... heart any more. It's like they're now assuming that the movie-going public is stupid and they're just jingling keys in front of them to keep their attention instead of giving them something to think about.
This was not done by Hollywood. It was an adaption done written and produced by the BBC themselves. Plus, there are countless actual modern Hollywood movies with heart and depth. Maybe actually look, instead of coming up with crap assumptions.
Maybe a small thing but I didn’t like when Hazel tells Bigwig to say he was guarding the run on orders of his chief rabbit. When Bigwig says that in the book he doesn’t say it’s part of a strategy, just because it’s the truth. Oh, and they left out the field mouse! “Isa no seeds from a shorta grass....”
16:05
Actually..
Before the new one came out I was a huuuge fan of the 70's film, the book, and the Tv series.
I'm not that annoyed about the new film and I kinda like it. Still I understand some points such as clover finding Hazel instead of bae (Fiver best rabbit UwU) and they missed out Bright Eyes.
1:30 IM SORRY?? GWERMO?? sis its pronounced gee-yer-mo...
That moment in the '78 movie of Fiver going for Hazel, it still makes me cry today. After that scene in the Netflix version, I made the decision to not even finish it. There were so many bad choices, but that was the absolute worst for me.
I thought this Netflix series was fantastic, watched it all in a single go. I never read the book or watched the early movie version so I guess that's why I was able to enjoy it. Overall 7/10. The CGI was a bit lacking but the voice acting made up for it.
With you mate
i watched to original as a kid in the theater and was very pleased with the Netflix version. I've never read the book though.
loved the general in this new version. you should read the book. its very good
the 2018 version is actully kinda based on the orignal verson of the story that Richard Adams told to his kids
Except loads of things were changed from the book
I loved the 2018 adaptation the amount of tense scenes were amazing and they somehow managed to make fighting rabbits cool.
People still remember and discuss the '78 version 45 years later. The Netflix version was forgotten within a month. I think that says it all.
I do prefer John Boyega as Bigwig. Even if his character isn't complete, I feel he portrays how I would expect Bigwig to talk and sound
In the 78 version the crazy dog killed half the enemies rabbits but the 18 version only killed one not including the general.
Don't think the 78 version had effected me in anyway even though I was about 3 when i 1st watched it.
The ending scene in the 78 movie was fantastic and absolutely terrifying really bringing home the terrible situation the rabbits were in. It's testament to Martin Rosen's adaptation and Angela Morley's outstanding score that makes the movie so impactful.
Saw part of it on TV over xmas, it's in 2 parts at least on the BBC, anyway it was dreadful, the animations look sub-par and very off in their approach, and it does not properly convey the book properly at all, especially when it came to fights and injurys, yes it does have a younger audience but that's why we had the TV series a few years ago, go show them that instead. True fans know that even the 1978 version ommited a prime sequence that involves a massive clash between 2 bunnie groups prior to Efrafa getting into the mix, the "warren takeover" battle never got made and it's a shame because it would have really helped some of the characters develop in depth personalities on whose side they were on etc, did we get it in 2018's version? Heck no, it's really inferior to the original and I just could not get into it at all
I'd strongly dislike how they turn strawberry into another hyperactive Dory clone when will filmmakers learn that nobody likes those type of characters?
Yeah she was irritating.
My dad went back to school to get his degree when I was a little girl in late 70's. He had to read that book for his English Lit class. So he read it, did his report on it, then came home and announced "That was a good book!" then put it on the bookshelf. 7or 8 year old me decided to read it as well, if it was that good. After I'd read it I said "That really IS a book!" My dad laughed and said I was too young to understand it. I told him I understood it fine so challenged me to summarize the book. He was shocked when I did. We bonded over that book and many others. We watched the 1979 version together and liked it well enough. We hated the 2018 Netflix version. They screwed over the female characters, and as the narrator says, diminished Fiver. Terrible.
I like all versions of Watership Down(yes, even the TV series, believe it or not). But it cannot be disputed that the 1978 movie is by far the most faithful adaptation. The Netflix series falls far behind on that point, and the less said about the TV series the better.
*HAZELRAH*
Thank you for the heads up of this, I didn't really feel like getting "punched in the childhood" as they say on the internet haha. Seriously though, I first saw the 1978 movie when I was like 7 or 8? Read the book around that time as well. I loved it because it was brutal and magical and scary, and had deep messages that made more of a lasting impression *because* this is about rabbits, from their point of view, and life is not all innocent and fluff like we think of stories about rabbits should be. (and yes, I was a pretty deep kid lol) Not to mention that scene where Fiver looks for Hazel, and that song! Ugh...never fails to get me choked up. And now they're trying to make it into some sappy lovey dovey scene between Hazel and Clover?? Plus, you don't mess with Keehar! Nope... not watching this! lol
What I like about the book is Richard Adams having lived in that part of the world, could paint a beautiful picture of the area, and you could see feel and smell the landscapes, and he wrote it in a timeless way where anyone of any age could read it. This series however is just a really bad computer graphicy watered down adaptation where they make the characters bland and unlikable and sadly this is how many kids will probably first experience Watership Down and I can't say for certain but something tells me Richard Adams wouldn't care for this adaptation.
In the cartoon series Bigwigg is constant angry and hot headed, everyone has their own way of telling this story. To be honest, as a fan yes I did enjoy this version. Honestly? I'm surprised you did not notice simularities to the cartoon series, did you not watch that or did you dislike that too?
I'll admit, I didn't quite like how they did Keyha, even in the cartoon series he was more like 78s movie
He stated at the start he hasn't watched the cartoon series.
The 2018 version is brilliant. The animation is breathtaking. The plot is beautiful. Yes it’s cut down, but it’s expected from a movie/series. Yes I’ve read the book, yes I’ve seen the 1978 movie, and yes I still adore the new version.
Whatever else you think about the 2018 version, I really think "breathtaking" is just excessive to describe the animation. The landscape work is often very good, it's true, but that just makes the frankly B-grade animation of the rabbits themselves stand out all the more. The movement is poorly modelled on real rabbit movement, it's often stiff to the point of woodenness, and there are times where you can even see body parts no-clipping through each other. Very much substandard for a budget of £5 million per episode.
People who think Watership Down is Watered Down. 'HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT DREAMWORKS DID TO
HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON AND TROLLHUNTERS?!?' Both of those source materials were far far far
darker than the sugar coated child safe versions you got on Netflix.
This 2018 reboot was really really harsh and violent when compared to those two shows and to me
for someone who has seen the 90's WatershipDown I understood the changes allot more.
(SPOILERS) The most baffling change comes near the end. As mentioned in the video, during the big fight with Woundwort, Bigwig says “My chief rabbit has told me to stay and defend this run,” showing how Hazel has earned his respect. It's also a plot point, as it causes the Efrafans to imagine a larger and more terrifying chief than Bigwig. In the miniseries, Hazel TELLS Bigwig to say it. This is seemingly to make Hazel look more clever, as if it's part of his plan all along. That's nice, but in the novel, it also meant something for Bigwig's character, and here, that's gone.
YES!!!
The dog lure at the climax wasn't done with Hazel, BlackBerry and Dandelion, but with Fiver and Blackavar instead. Also, the animation for bob the dog is terrible. And not great either for Tab the cat. Silver and Pipkin are completely missing, and the Black rabbit of inle has been gender swapped. Overall, it wasn't as bad as I'd feared, and did enjoy it, but many story points were changed without reason, the animation was lacking in many areas and the passing of Hazel at the end wasn't as sad or as poignant.
Strawberry and the Black Rabbit of Inle were both gender swapped. But, hey, more female power!! I'm just really upset that Pipkin wasn't included. I also forgot about Silver... I also can't believe that Keehar didn't say, "Pizz off!" (How did he say it?)
Yeah a lot of comics are turning Death into a woman too, see Sandman. Guess they got the idea from there.
I liked how they did the Black Rabbit of Inle in the new adaptation tbh.
That's true, since Strawberry was turned into a female, it did /slightly/ break the need for females. But, I thought when it showed Hawkbit and Dandelion fighting over her, and then Bigwig saying that that was only the beginning until they get some other does, I thought..well..it sort of made up for having a female Strawberry? I'm not quite sure.
Also, they sort of left the story of Efrafra..hanging?? In the book, I'm pretty sure Captain Campion leads Efrafra, but in Netflix's version, it just looks like the Efrafrans who went to attack Watership Down...fled. Like, it didn't show what they did afterwards.
Wasn't there also a male rabbit in the farm's rabbit hutch? I think his name was Haystack. I'm just a bit surprised that Clover was the only hutch rabbit they got to rescue.
I thought that Hazel didn't show any leadership qualities. I mean, by the book, he does, but I was just thinking, anyone who didn't read the book, would they see that Hazel was leading them? Or would they be confused to why they see him as the leader?
The scene with the abandoned and broken down building and crows was a bit...useless, in my opinion. They could have been building up more on the characters. Like, there could have been more brotherly establishment between Hazel and Fiver. I guess. In the beginning, it is shown, but later they switched Fiver's role of finding Hazel with Clover, and uh..yeah.
@@petalleaf2808 omg
Big wig's voice actor in the Netflix series is PERFRCTION WHO IS IT
John Boyega. Was in the Disney Star Wars abomination and played the stormtrooper that ended up fighting for the rebels.
Spot on observations.
I saw the ‘78 version on my sixth Birthday at a beautiful theater that played art and foreign films. It was February of ‘79. I remember seeing an ad for the movie on the little black and white television we had in our kitchen. I asked my parents to take me to see it, which mother thought would be a great activity for my birthday. My little brain exploded that afternoon just like it did in the late summer of ‘77 when I saw Star Wars for the first time.
Just like Star Wars, Watership Down became one of the touchstones of my youth, informing and influencing me in ways both subtle and overt. It was one of the first novels I read (and reread). To say I love the story and the characters would be an understatement.
I was excited when I heard Netflix was coproducing a new miniseries of the novel. My kids and I binge watched it upon its release. We agreed it was passable, but ultimately hollow. It’s quite frustrating that such a great opportunity was fumbled by unnecessary changes and barely passable animation (my daughter said it looked like the test footage they use before adding CGI characters into a film like Avengers or Star Wars).
Oh well - if this film introduces a new generation of kids to Watership Down and inspires them to read the book, then that is a good thing.
Great analysis - I look forward to watching more of your videos.
Woundwart did have a rough backstory if I remember correctly? His mother was killed by a weasel and his father shot by a farmer?
Then he was tormented by a cat for like a year until he killed it, vowing to kill at LEAST a thousand more. I don't there's anything wrong with a villain having a relatively sympathetic backstory. If anything, it helps us understand how they got there. And it doesn't cheapen their villainous actions.
"Missed opportunities " about sums up both versions those several decisions in the Martin Rosen version are at least commendable. Personally I would have preferred if the entire feature has been done by John Hubley in the style of his opening. I do prefer the stylization of the earlier version, though I do also commend the shadow puppet design of the opening in the new serial. And I must say that despite the power Adams words in the narration of the first version, I think that version informed the narration of the opening in the new serial because there is an emotional power there that seems deeper than the original. Unfortunately the rest of the serial looks like it was created with taxidermied department store display rabbits. The caricature of the drawn animation at least displays more emotion. What I do wish is that we as an audience were able to have more easy access to rosen's follow-up adaptation of plague dogs, and I suspect the reason it isn't out at all anymore is that it is so goddamn depressing even though it is so damned gorgeous.
Unfortunately no matter how "good" or "unique" the new adaptation is, as someone who appreciates the work for the original movie and artistic value and how they expressed such emotion through the use of animation. there is no way i enjoy the new one with such janky movement and such anti climatic visuals for all the emotional sequences, anyone who prefers it over the original, only appreciates it for how it appears on the surface, and to watch it blindly for fun, or because it is more "child friendly"
people lost being able to enjoy heart wrenching animation somewhere along the way and now they just remove it from their life because it causes too much "emotional trauma" well that's part of human feelings, any animation, or work of art that can bring out an array of human emotions is what really makes a piece memorable and unforgettable.
in my opinion they have made this new adaptation forgettable.
R.I.P. My precious childhood trauma :'(
Watership Down vs Watered Down Shit.
lol underrated
@@arthurdahm2676
I completely forgot about this comment! You're darned right it's underrated.
I really enjoyed the 2018 version and really appreciated the animation! I thought the 2018 version was filled with fascinating shots of the countryside. I found the changes interesting not inappropriate and I felt extremely entertained throughout the series when I first saw it on Netflix. I really appreciate Hazel's bravery and persistence and although they say Blackberry is the smartest of the group of rabbits but I personally believe that it is Hazel, purely through the way he steers his companions into trusting him and how he has faith in Fiver. As is stated Bigwig is extremely impulsive but really like him as a character.
My recommendation is; #1 - read the book. It is a timeless classic.
#2 - See the 1978 Animated film and then cancel your Netflix subscription.
Mmmh this movie made me think about what we humans actually do to animals. Just think about it.
That's why really love the movie.
The 78 movie is way better. The book is way better than the 78 movie.
I must be odd because I loved the new vs the original? Even having read the book before all of these. It's an engaging adaptation. Strawberry is wonderful, especially that she causes added conflict. You do seem opinionated in your video, nostalgia goggles as it were. The boat for example. Floating items were introduced, the gun to prepare us for the boat as it stands. We got a can and then a lid in one episode, the can being the lid's gun. How would you tie that in? Episodic medium is a different fish to fry. You can't just toss it in the same pot with the same ingredients and expect everything to work out fine. We need the characters to behave differently, have new dynamics, extra traits, plot elements, etc, to keep it episodic. Otherwise it's "Watership Down 1/6 full movie" and I was happy to see something new with a lot of love put into it, even if the budget shows, I got used to the design flaws after the first "chapter." Thanks for your insight but all it did was solidify the reasons the show shined brightly.
i enjoy the new aswel (if thats what you mean xD)
I enjoy it as a stand alone but put it with the book and movie in my opinion it can't compare.
As a huge fan of the book and original movie, I cannot understand why the majority are so negative about the remake: it was brilliant.
Same. I loved the novel, the short stories and the original film.I get the CGI wasn't great, but I thought this miniseries was fine.