(Slight hijack.)
Really? Sissy-fication? I tend to think not. But then maybe you were referring strictly to the film industry.
Personally, I read it in fifth grade.
The film has one of the most pointless deviations from the source material I’ve ever encountered: They add a doe to the original Sandleford band, and then kill her off on the way to WD so that they still need does (and can thus have the entire Efrafan plot).
That’s silly. In the book, they had to go to Efrafa despite having the two farm does - two does weren’t enough for the number of males they had, and the fighting would have been horrific.
She’s eleven. I probably should have warned her that these weren’t your average cinematic bunny rabbits. 
(of course, I also had no idea that they’d do that to Blackavar in the film…wtf? I liked that rabbit)
I mostly mean anything intended for young people. Particularly the Watership Down BBC TV series for example. I’m sure kids loved it, but to a fan of the book & film it’s almost insulting.
I don’t think it should be remade, the existing film stands on its own as an almost unique triumph in serious animated storytelling. Its good that it isn’t ‘Disney quality’ animation because the heart & soul of the book was its detailed and enveloping characters & story. The animation could have been a little better, but in the end it wouldn’t have mattered to me.
And for those unfamiliar with it, I’m still amazed that Adams’ other novel, The Plague Dogs, got made into an animated film. A film 1000 times more dark and depressing than WD. More dark & depressing than even the original novel*!* Still worth watching, though definitely not with young kids.
I get what you’re saying, I really do. However, between the opening scenes of Finding Nemo and this. I’d hardly say that the last twenty years or so of children’s entertainment, even, has been all that tame.
Trust me, we’ll always have our Bambi moments (thankfully).
Yeah, *Finding Nemo *was a nearly perfect film, but the violence of the opening scene was all off-camera (which given the tone & story was perfectly appropriate). The scariest part of that film was that freakin’ angler fish! I was 40-something when I saw it and it creeped me the hell out.
For its release here in the states Watership Down got a PG from the MPAA, but that was 1978. Being how sensitive they seem to be about bloody violence today (literally, violence with blood) I wouldn’t be surprised if they’d insist on cuts to avoid it getting an R!
I saw it in a theatre on a class trip - I was I think 9 years old, so grade 4 … my guess is that the teachers had no idea what the story was about in advance, and simply thought an animated movie about cute rabbits must be for younger children. 
Personally, I loved it at the time, and soon read the book, but it was a trifle … intense … for a class of kids that age.
Expression on some kid’s faces comming out of that movie: :eek:
I saw the 1978 version in the theater. So many mothers with small children filed in as the trailers ran! I knew what was coming, having read the book. In the opening sequence, one rabbit rips another’s throat out, blood running down his chin.
There was a vast shuffling in the darkness, the sound of many mothers voting with their feet.
Not sure how I missed the 1978 film; I’m sure I’d already read Watership Down by then. (Thanks to this thread, I’ve already started reading it for the hrair+1st time - yeah, I know, that’s kinda like infinity plus one in that hrair + 1 = hrair, but you get the idea.)
At any rate, I’m going to have to watch it - but without the Firebug, who is 7 and would definitely have nightmares about what’s been described here.
I’ve often thought that with CGI, this could be done well…here’s hoping.
I can understand the “muh childhood” reaction since there’s a good chance it’ll be terrible, but hey, at least a new generation will learn that rabbits are assholes.
For some reason a movie about vivisection didn’t become a cultural touchstone. I often see it on lists of underrated movies/animations, so it’s not forgotten.
This thread made me realize that I had somehow never actually seen the movie. So I went ahead and rectified that.
And…
SPOILERS, I guess…
[spoiler]…I don’t see why it’s supposed to be so traumatizing. Sure, there’s death. But everyone who snuffs it is a bad guy or a red shirt. None of the main characters actually die. Well, unless you count the one case of “happy and content, from old age” at the end.
I kept waiting for someone I cared about to die horribly. But, nope. Happy endings all round (unless I somehow missed something). Really, for it to be a proper tragedy, with some impact, at least Hazel or Bigwig needed to get it.
The thing is practically Disney. Weak sauce.
[/spoiler]
Seriously, am I the only one with this reaction?
This depends entirely on the audience.
What got Watership Down its rep is that, to many unfamiliar with the story, it appeared to be a buccolic tale about cute rabbits in the sleepy English countryside. The animation style fits with this - very pretty hand-painted watercolour backdrops.
So a lot of people took very young children to see it.
It is this disconnect between the outward appearance and plot that made it a legend.
Sure, set it beside Game of Thrones it isn’t so harsh. But the audience for Game of Thrones is expecting harsh.
Sure, the main characters don’t die - but they hardly escape unharmed; each of them comes very close to death, often very traumatically (think Bigwig in the snare). This isn’t surprising, since aparently the author was drawing on his WW2 experiences when he wrote the story. WW2 themes abound in the story - from the gassing of the warren (how many kids movies expressly depict mass murder by poision gas, I wonder? 
), the collaborationist Vichy rabbits of Cowslip’s “warren of complicity”, through to the Nazi-like General Woundwort and his Efrafan SS (compete with organized rape, which is actually depicted! Albeit more by implication than graphically).
In short, many (out of a complete ignorance of the story) were expecting a cute story about bunnies suitable for six-year-olds, and not WW2-with-rabbits themes.
Blackavar, the rabbit that escaped from Efrafa (I think) is a small and very sympathetic character. Hence it was pretty upsetting when he sacrifices himself in a suicidal attack against Woundwort at the end (especially considering how weak he was and how easily Woundwort dispatches him). The thing that really wouldn’t fly today is the amount of blood in the fight scenes. The MPAA has become very overly-sensitive to visible blood and I wouldn’t be surprised if Watership got an R rating today because of it. Hell,* Star Trek VI *made Klingon blood purple because of this.
Right. OK, I suppose I’m with you.
Although, now I’m a bit confused about who the intended audience is, anyway. It seems a bit too adult for young children, but also a bit too “oh, see, he escaped the snare, it’s all right, and here’s a funny bird” for adults.
(BTW, that’s a question, not criticism. OK, it’s criticism. But it’s mainly a question.)
For the movie, hard to say. Here’s the theatrical trailer which to my surprise doesn’t really soft-peddle the movie at all. But of course back then trailers were slightly less ubiquitous - judging by the tales of traumatized young’uns obviously not enough parents caught it ;). But it really didn’t slot neatly into an at least American demographic - too adult for young children, too animated ( back when animation was still largely considered kiddy-fare ) for teens and adults. Might have fared better in Japan.
The book, though - have you read it? I’d consider it essentially an “all ages” book, barring the very youngest. It was pitched as a kids/young adult book ( and won the Carnegie Medal ), but really it works pretty well for adults IMHO. Bit of an instant classic, really. Pity in a way that Adams’ best work was his first - he never really reached that height again.
Well, it is very popular as both book and movie, so it evidently has an audience; I myself saw the move (and liked it) as a kid, so not all kids were traumatized by it. I’d say it works best with older kids and teens. That is, ones who will be interested in the more sophisticated themes (the use of mythology, the different types of social oppression the heroes encounter, the nature of death, etc. ) and not horrified by wee bunnies ripping out throats, or being gassed to death.
The film was allegedly marketed in a somewhat schizophernic manner - there were apparently two different versions of poster art/video cover; one much darker, one more cartoony and family-oriented.
Looking at wikipedia, the movie apparently fared very well in its native England, not well in America.