Steve Reviews: Watership Down 2018 Remake vs The Original 1978

[@asiahschacher3006]

Another detail that bothered me personally was that fact that in the CG. The rabbits design look more like hares than actual bunnies.

[@KlutzyNinjaKitty]

I’m pretty sure that’s because the rabbits in the remake are always standing tall kinda like a jackrabbit. Actual rabbits do a kind of hop-then-sit thing and are bunched up as opposed to standing.

[@anna-maria6266]

Exactly

[@vince3523]

What is the difference between hares and rabbits

[@SummonerDagger88]

@@vince3523 Rabbits are smaller and cuter

[@vince3523]

@@SummonerDagger88 but isn't there a breed of rabbit that's huge?

[@brycevo]

*But Wait, It's Not*

[@wienerschnitzel1739]

*But Wait, It is*

[@abdel-azizs5720]

But Wait, it's Not

[@brycevo]

Thank you for the ♥️

[@rE-vc5ql]

I see you everywhere

[@jaistar4695]

Now if only we could get the Animals of farthing wood season 1-3 remake

[@emmagrove6491]

As a traditional animator who refuses to give up her paper and pencils (and paints), I appreciate you recognizing how just making something CGI doesn't improve it. The original is one of the best animated films ever made. In re-watching it, I was stunned at the focus on all the GORGEOUS watercolor backgrounds and the intense atmosphere they create.

[@lyneismydogsnamenow]

I agree with you so much. I used to study in 2D animatiom exactly for these reasons. The feels and scents of paper and pencils in your hands, the flow of lines creating the scene,... even CGI will never recreate such emotions, such connections with traditional touch.

[@astrowolvez]

Yeah that cgi looks fucking awful.

[@MeepChangeling]

@@lyneismydogsnamenow I genuinely despise you elitists who shit all over a medium simply because you personally do not enjoy it, nor understand the depth and breadth of skill it takes to craft. You are no different from people who mock fantasy novelists because genera fiction is 'easy'. Take up a tablet. Try and make a ball bounce using 3d modeling and animation. Do it in any style you like, just make it good. That's it. No background. No character. One ball. Of any kind. Bouncing off the ground. Go ahead. Try.

[@nyancat.123]

CG /=/ bad The animator's skill is

[@Breakaway-ic5gj]

Welcome to the film industry, where the higher the effort, the lower the art is worth

[@kokichioma1901]

General Woundwarts last words 1987: "Dogs Aren't dangerous!" 2018: "I fear nothing"

[@rogue3186]

Personally I perfer the 2018 but if you like a good meme the 1987

[@sad_boi_razor8983]

hi Kokichi- that's- kinda ironic coming from you... or something... there's a word for it I'm just too sleep-deprived to find it.

[@Esplodiamoinallegria]

1978

[@sad_boi_razor8983]

@Captain Bruh I used to be a Celestia Ludenburg roleplayer gimmie a break-

[@sad_boi_razor8983]

@Captain Bruh I can't it's in my blood!!!!! [chaotic laughter]

[@seepypis6454]

Watership Down is a cute children’s movie. *but wait* *it’s not*

[@VVen0m]

This made me laugh SO HARD! XDDDDD

[@ruethechosenone5197]

Watership Down is a cute children’s movie. but wait there's gore

[@peridorkster2634]

słeepypiłłs lol

[@Insanity_TM]

👹 666 likes

[@r3alysys26]

No u

[@saljpal3]

I don't really see showing Woundwort's sad backstory as a problem. It doesn't justify his actions or make us feel sympathy for him. It simply explains why he is the way he is.

[@tkyng2885]

The Woundwort in the Tv series has a better one. It actually shows why he wants to be in control and hates men The new one didn’t make sense to me. If he warned everyone about the Fox they would still be alive,if he ran away from the warren then the rest would be alive. The only reason he hates humans because they made him a “Hutch rabbit”

[@osmanyousif7849]

Yeah, but you can do this without showing this, like take Colonel Kurtz from Apocalypse Now. We know that he's he villain of the story and just by the way he shows no mercy and brutally kills the main character Willard's team mates and forced to watch what Kurtz does, shows that hate he have for him but while at this time Kurtz monologues on the horrors of war showing why he does what he does, despite it not being justified for what he's just doing to Willard, which is why Willard decides in the end that Kurtz must die. The concept of the villain is that a villain must be shown what they are and what they do here. Martin Scorsese is responsible for one of my favorite quotes, "Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's not.", which basically means what you choose to not show is as important as what you do. And since the villain is someone who is not only ruthless, but shows a very fatal belief system, think a better way to go was to maybe during one of his moments where he has the character at his paws or is giving a speech to his his followers this is where all the moments of learning who the character is should be, just as long as they don't overdo it. but get into enough, just like Colonel Kurtz.

[@sophieisanostrich1461]

I am very happy someone said that!

[@shalikrox9720]

In the book Woundwort's family was killed by man not a fox and it helped play into the bigger theme of man's destruction of everything around it and it also tells how he set up the warren and shows the psychological side of the messed up reality he created without ever making you think he would have a redemption arc, even though he has what you would call a tragic backstory the author leaves no room for sympathy or redemption and then when you're done with the story he seems to have be a little off even before his family dies and it's strongly hinted that he isn't actually killed. They never find a body and they straight up say that they think he's out there still because he's not the kind to die but he won't(probably) come back because he knows he can't win.

[@Sinshana]

Yup thats exactly right. A lot of media does this successfully, humanizing a villain but NOT justifying their actions. You dont have to downplay the villainy or anything like that, in fact its great writing if they manage to draw sympathy for an absolutely irredeemable character because it makes the audience feel conflicted or go through a rollercoaster of motions. Complex characters are good and are way more interesting that one-note villains.

[@karnivorevolpe5344]

I can STILL hear the ghost rabbits... "WE COULDN'T GET OUT." "A FUNNY SOUND, A HISSING, THEN THE AIR TURNED SOUR" "DEAD BODIES BLOCKED THE ESCAPES" All of these lines and their delivery are burned into my memory.

[@Spicy_Coffee]

Same..... I get nightmares.....

[@karnivorevolpe5344]

YES..horrible ones xP this movie deeply scarred me for a long time

[@shoshitaketakeyani3275]

Great childhood memories

[@theinternalkiller]

quality entertainment 10/10 would recommend for children of all ages! (seriously this freaked me out in highschool and still haunts me as an adult).

[@ImBlueDaBaDeeDaBaDaa]

theinternalkiller This traumatized me as a five year old, and I have a fear of rabbits to this day two decades later. Also get flashbacks, and want to cry at any clip I see of it.

[@BaldDumboRat]

The death of Violet in the 1978 version bothers the hell out of me because in the book, it was incredibly important that none of the rabbits died on their journey, which is what gave them such high confidence that they could achieve things like breaking the rabbits out of the barn and infiltrating Effrafa because they felt that fate was on their side.

[@IDKIDKIDK300]

“Violets gone 😬”

[@talkingweevil3172]

It felt so pointless that violet was even there 😂

[@VALI4NTY0UTH]

@@talkingweevil3172Well she was the only doe from Sandleford during their adventure.

[@talkingweevil3172]

@@VALI4NTY0UTH doesn’t matter. She had no purpose.

[@VALI4NTY0UTH]

@@talkingweevil3172 No purpose story-wise but from the rabbits’ perspective yeah she had a purpose.

[@Showsni]

As to the "bucks don't dig" - this is used in the novel to show how forward thinking Hazel's warren is. It's established practice that bucks will usually only dig a short scrape for shelter, but actual burrows are dug by the does when they are having kittens. So Blackberry (always the clever one) reasons that they need to do things differently - if they're going to make a go of living on Watership Down they'll have to try new things. The bucks come together to dig the Honeycomb, with the idea of basing some of the design on Cowslip's great warren. And it's a great success - they dig out the warren themselves. (Strawberry gets a lot of the credit as helping to design the warren). It's only after they've finished the whole warren that they realise they need does, to continue the warren after they've gone.

[@thegreatbeanie6610]

Showsni awesome finally someone gets that!!!!!!!!

[@Michael-yl2iq]

I don't remember a female rabbit in the book prior to their attempts to find does.

[@north-roadcaveman5818]

@@Michael-yl2iq in the '78 movie their only doe gets swooped up by a large bird, not sure if that's in the book

[@Michael-yl2iq]

@@north-roadcaveman5818 Been awhile, but I remember reading it maybe 40 years ago and Strawberry was a male and they had no does when they reached their down. That is why they needed to get does.

[@BigBeerus]

Also in nature male rabbits can't dig worth fuck

[@poweroffriendship2.0]

*_I'm pretty sure the real winner of this battle is the ORIGINAL BOOK itself. It's way better than the two._*

[@huorderedthisbigmactaollbe9029]

Normies these days paying attention to the anime and live action adaption when they should be focusing on the manga.

[@CrAzYGAMINGWOLF]

@@huorderedthisbigmactaollbe9029 I prefer to watch the anime, but the manga is good as well, fuck the live action ghost in the shell

[@joeytheslimeboi8900]

Massachusetts Mapping & Elevators not with ready player one

[@laciehinds7768]

Friendship oh great, your that type of asshole eh?

[@laciehinds7768]

Massachusetts Mapping & Elevators *Cough* The Shining *Cough*

[@TheGerkuman]

Woundwort's backstory exists because he's supposed to be an extremist who originally had a point. His original goal to protect others is admirable but then he twists it into an authoritarian regime and it all goes downhill from there. Without it, he's just a two-note character. Same reason he, in the book, briefly considers Hazel's offer.

[@TheQalax]

Ye. The final showdown was well executed. If they had added any flashbacks like Steve here suggested it would have ruined it. I thought showing the fox attack in the beginning of the episode was just enough information we needed. The whole thing felt like it was Woundworts story in the end, for me.

[@gabrielanthony1129]

Even though he was a “two note” character, as you describe, he was still far more memorable because of how evil and cruel and ruthless he was in the original film. The remake tried to humanize him too much and that took away from the mystery of the character l. He didn’t need a backstory. What made him so scary in the original was because we didn’t know what turned him so evil, and to us he was just cruel for no reason. The remake tried to make the viewers sympathetic and understanding of Woundwort and that just ruins the character imo. We’re supposed to fear woundwort, not feel sorry for him

[@ladysilverwynde]

"Kehaar is based on a soldier from the Norwegian Resistance during World War II." Thus the accent. He's based on a soldier that Richard Adams knew during WWII.

[@user-us7el6ss2l]

I thought he was Swedish

[@noelnoelinski911]

Since its now on Netflix as a ,,Orignal" now i can easily say: Manga: the Book Anime: the animated Film Netflix adaptation: the 2018 miniseries

[@milotic4243]

Dear god...

[@milotic4243]

Sry man, gotta meme this

[@firaxolegirein9816]

That is too accurate to have the right to exist

[@chickennuggetpaw1017]

I think the reason they said that bucks “can’t” dig is because in the original book, Bigwig (I think; it may have been one of the others) says that digging is “for does”. Then Adams side notes later that bucks only scrape when they need to, while does do a lot of the digging for their kits. So, they didn’t make it up, they just used it as an excuse so they didn’t have to mention “reproduction” in the movie. So, still a dumb reason 😂

[@wiktorialyzwinska8039]

Well yes but Bigwig mentions that if they won't get any females they are going to start fighting, mostly for dominance which could point out the reproduction

[@wolfrodger8998]

Paraphrase from the book "Buck don''t dig, not can't but don't. Not in any serious way."

[@rangerlovee3324]

real rabbits, females do most of the digging. its not that males cant... its just that females do it most of the time & more extensively. i dont understand why they have to use that reason. the major point the group would want females is to reproduce. period.

[@rikkun6815]

So, they rather had Bigwig spew sexist nonsense than make the faintest hint at how baby bunnies are made. Lol.

[@lucigoo4529]

But then they did dig, the created the Warren before the does arrived.

[@SteveReviews]

Ok I’ve noticed a lot of comments on here referring to how the book is better, and how the BBC remake is superior as it made lots of references to the book that I missed, such as the Does being able to dig better than the Bucks. Full disclosure, I have not read the book, and perhaps I should have made that clear in the video, but here’s my response: 1) This review was purely to compare the two films to one another, and that’s it. I never really get it when people look at the book as a direct form of entertainment comparison. A book is a completely different medium and offers the individual a completely different experience to watching something on a screen. It’s like saying that playing a board game is much better than playing a video game, when in fact they’re two different things. By all means you can state how the book handled things different, such as story elements and characters, but you can’t compare they’re entertainment quality. 2) People are saying that if I had read the book then I would fully understand why the BBC remake mentioned such seemingly pointless things, such as the Bucks not being able to dig as good as the Does. This is apparently fully explained in the book. Well here’s the thing.. the book may have explained better as to why the Does are the better diggers, but the BBC remake did not, it simply threw it in as a random line of dialogue with no context surrounding it. Therefore it is assuming that I must have already read the book, so don’t need it fully explained to me. That’s bad writing, I should not have to go seeking additional source material in order to understand what’s going on, it should all be fully explained in the film itself. If one of the rabbits in the remake just added a bit of extra dialogue such as “we never learnt how to dig as in our old warren it was the Does that dug out the tunnels” then fine, but it didn’t. 3) I hope you are all having a wonderful day. :)

[@Jenema2]

You shouldn't be comparing them to begin with when they arent remakes, they're VERY DIFFERENT adaptations of the same source material. Seriously like trying to compare Taming of the Shrew with "10 things I hate about you:". Same source material, similar characters, very different film.

[@Martyrules]

It was a great video. Idk why people always throw in how the book is this and that. The books usually aren't under the same time constraints and can be as long as need. They are a different medium like you said and should be treated as such. I'm subbing

[@anthus9786]

Uhh.. The fact that the does dig better is fully explained in motion. We see them digging better, and faster, several times.

[@dfwjac]

It actually strays farther from the book than the '78 film. And the decisions made were stupid.

[@Hawkalon]

no, bad writing would be exactly what you just typed. if they had to explicitly state that they never learned how to dig for you to understand that does are the diggers, then the problem was you. good writing is "show, don't tell". the remake did quite enough to get the point across; i hadnt read the book when i watched it either but i wasnt going to assume i knew better than the writers about animal behavior based on nothing whatsoever.

[@huntercool2232]

7:40 That is actually a freaking irl fact that wasn’t just put in there for plot convenience. Female rabbits are normally the ones who dig the burrows because males are crap at it.

[@matthewfranks2198]

That doesn’t make much sense

[@SewerxGator]

@@matthewfranks2198 take that up with mother nature man, and it does, gender dimorphism in nature goes deeper than brighter and darker colors and what they got between their legs. They're just prone to digging, and being better at it. its instinct.

[@zenmaster8826]

@@matthewfranks2198 It’s nature.. it doesn’t care if it makes sense to you 🤡

[@AroAceFroggie]

@@matthewfranks2198 Nature is confusing. Does have instincts and claws for digging while bucks have instincts and claws for fighting

[@JM-gd3hr]

Yeah, males dig as well but females tend to dig more

[@hunkbaloni960]

Peter Rabbit + War = Watership down Edit: didn’t expect this to get so many likes thanks people!

[@SheWolf_Warrior]

Lol

[@luckyluke-ni9ml]

Lol

[@samoneill6733]

Lol

[@hunkbaloni960]

Lol

[@pajhawkishahaismhee2999]

Lol

[@strayiggytv]

7:50 But in real life female Rabbits as better diggers than male rabbits. There is a real citation to a study that shows that female rabbit dig longer and more consistently and more elaborately than males. Don't ask me why that is but they do.

[@veronicapiccinini7956]

Even the 2018 version lampshaded it

[@BonazaiGirl]

strayiggyTV Maybe because female rabbits adapt to make dens for their offspring in order to support more rabbits in a space. I honestly don’t know, it’s just an educated guess.

[@aaronlandry3934]

strayiggyTV Interesting, but I’m pretty sure a bunch of male rabbits can dig a warren well enough without any does. They would need does if they wanted future generations to live in their warren, though.

[@yourarseismine1016]

It's BBC trying to sugar coat it.

[@gigatrooper5098]

Who gives a shït

[@hsjdndd6081]

In real rabbit warrens does are the ones who dig. A buck can dig a hole but doesn't have the brain power/instincts to create a Warren. Bucks can't even dig a tunnel. The main reason for a buck to dig is when it's fighting. When two bucks fight they will stop and dig with their tails up, the digging is a show of strength in attempt to intimidate the other buck. They also will dig a small hole and overturn the dirt during hot weather to lay in and cool off.

[@shaalis]

Yep. And through the original book, Adams notes stuff about actual rabbit sciences and wildlife study, all marked in subtext.

[@disaidra]

Because watership down is of course first and foremost an accurate depiction of wild rabbit behaviour. Rabbits in the wild would also rescue hutch rabbits, release a dog to fight a rival warren, run a warren as a police state, chase down deserters etc etc

[@hsjdndd6081]

@@disaidra He was talking shit about how the reason to have females was bs because bucks can dig. They can't. They do not dig in to book, original, or remake and they don't dig in real life. I was correcting him. And yeah this obviously isn't realistic but it tries to have some shit realistic and bucks not digging is one of those things.

[@swanpride]

Watership down is actually very concerned about creating a world how rabbits would see it. It is also very specific about Cowlip's warren and Efrara being "perverted" due to human influence. (In Efrafra's case because Woodworth got crazy due to his contact with humans) and that Watership down is different due to Hazel being a particularly visionary leader who does a lot of things which are unusual for a rabbit. Basically there is always a "this is how a proper rabbit would behave" baseline running through it.

[@daphnehanson7959]

maybe that's why strawberry can dig a hole faster than the others

[@2022irons]

Grandma: *I think I’ll get this on DVD for my grandson, it looks cute.* Grandson: *(screaming in horror)*

[@MissMaja24]

That was literally me at 6 years old 🤣🤣 Except I wasn't horrified it was my favorite movie

[@horuho245]

Wouldn't it be the opposite? The original book was released in the 70s

[@MissMaja24]

@@horuho245 I don't have the book, I want to get it though ☺️

[@sarahvanrooyen7280]

Lol

[@LucyLioness100]

Too bad the 2018 animation had the 2019 ‘Lion King’ effect. The character models look realistic enough, but the original film had such flair and the lead characters looked much more like real rabbits compared to 2018’s characters

[@edelweissbunny5556]

Realistic..how? They have unnatural body shapes nothing like that of real rabbits Such as their back legs being too long and their movements are also nothing like rabbits Rabbits actually hop, these guys..like..limp

[@liirumlaarum712]

@@edelweissbunny5556 do u never have seen rabbit before

[@edelweissbunny5556]

@@liirumlaarum712 Yes. Have you? Also, have you considered appropriate grammar?

[@mauricethegecko9700]

@@edelweissbunny5556 do you are have stupid? The rabbits that YOU would see are all fat, and also, for the remake and the original movie, they're not rabbits, they're hares.

[@mauricethegecko9700]

@@edelweissbunny5556 it's alright. And I do see what you mean now. I rewatched it and it does look a little off.

[@seraphssong]

About the “Bucks can’t dig, we need does”: both movies are correct with the book. They need does to dig because does have the instincts to dig for their kittens

[@beetletwoese8952]

Even so, needing pussy is like a 10 times better reason than hole digging

[@oofsong9496]

@@beetletwoese8952 I mean, they kind of dig a hole themselves... Yk

[@SunnieDune]

@@beetletwoese8952 as a non-straight person, ew and also it helps with the longer time run, with that they need does for digging

[@beetletwoese8952]

Lunnii Moon your spelling is really throwing me off here man

[@SunnieDune]

@@beetletwoese8952 ok I don't care cry about it all you want

[@darkmya19]

I wander how long intil remake of plague dogs happens

[@MausBreaker]

Never I hope and if it is it will likely be a war crimes

[@michaelball93]

They would probably turn the Todd female to serve as a love interest for Rowf, make all the human characters sympathetic by giving them 'tragic' backstories, have Snitter get cheerfully patched up and adopted by the end and animate the whole thing in CGI from 2001.

[@bleedingth0rnrawrx3]

mya p no hunny, I rather love the old then having it fucked

[@InsaneGold]

That better not happen, it's one of my favorites

[@superplaceholder6537]

No! I don't want a remake of Plague Dogs! They are gonna ruin it!

[@TiefseeToaster]

“that's a bloody epic scene“ well yeah, it sure is bloody.

[@DabriciusFabricius]

@@dogeggsofficial you do know it was a joke right?

[@dogeggsofficial]

@@DabriciusFabricius Could either be a dumb person or someone making a joke

[@ThatOneKaijuFan]

*But Wait, It’s Not*

[@sherri1699]

One of my favourite books....never watched the movies though. Disappointing to hear they changed basic points, such as taking Fiver's sixth sense about his brother away. Hazel was always "reluctant hero-leader" in the book. Bigwig was the tank who kept order under Hazel. Kehaar talks normally? They don't speak the same language. Why did they ruin the characters? Also notice how they are never sitting, but always have their hindquarters up? Rabbits lollop and sit, run and sit, hop and sit. These guys look more like dogs with their backs always up. Come to think of it, they look like kangaroos!

[@MissMaja24]

We don't get any rabbit loafs of bread :S

[@lazuardialdi2646]

WUT ABOUT HOLLY'S MEMORY?

[@SavouryGalette]

Just because a movie changes stuff from the book doesn't mean it's automatically bad.

[@sherri1699]

@@SavouryGalette no one said that.

[@SavouryGalette]

@@sherri1699 That's what you implied.

[@harrysemps]

The new watership down is the superior version and is a flawless masterpiece... *but wait, it's not*

[@luckyluke-ni9ml]

How it has the worst writing and animation.

[@Cloud_Strife1997]

@@luckyluke-ni9ml r/wooosh

[@luckyluke-ni9ml]

@@Cloud_Strife1997 wtf does that mean and the story general is flawed the characters are flat and it is rushed in some parts farthing wood has better characters and is better paced this series was about as needed as the 1999 series which is basicly fathwood only with a higher animation budget.

[@notgalvatron1698]

@@luckyluke-ni9ml Read the comment again, but more clearly this time and actually have a working sense of humor.

[@luckyluke-ni9ml]

@@notgalvatron1698 I was not trying to make a joke but prove a point.

[@mathildaweir]

I'm kindoff ashamed of myself because I actually cry when people criticize the original because I love it a bit too much 😅

[@deusexrockina]

Same I think it's a masterpiece

[@katarinafil]

I agree with most of your points. But it looks like you forgot watership down was a book before it was a movie. I don't think this was ment to be a remake of the 1978 movie, but an adaptation of the book. I enjoyed it. I'm probably not watching it again, but it was alright. I think the worse for me was the character designs. I could only tell most characters apart from their voices. They all kinda look alike in most scenes.

[@ashleymacdonald3253]

But this video isn't about the adaptation it's about comparing the two different films. So the book doesn't really matter in this context.

[@captianstego6435]

@@ashleymacdonald3253 but he does call the new one a remake of the 1978 movie

[@randompersonlol7649]

Catarina Neto the only rabbit I could tell apart from the other rabbits were clover, fiver, bigwig, blue berry, and woundwort.... the rest all look the same to me lol

[@shoshitaketakeyani3275]

I thought it always a bit too difficult to tell all the rabbits apart. The original and the remake. Of course Bigwig has hair and he's very large so it's obvious. Hazel was thin and small with Fiber normally pretty close by. But most of the other rabbits are brown/grey but don't have a distinguishing personality or a lot of lines to tell them apart

[@iridescentaurora268]

Catarina Neto ‘They all look alike’ Right, but so do actual rabbits

[@jbrisby]

I can't help but wonder if you've ever actually read the book. A lot of the things you're perplexed by in the remake are actually misguided attempts to include things from the book. Like, the reason a rabbit would make a shitty joke in the middle of a suspenseful scene is because in the book, he was established as having gone a little mad in the destruction of their home warren, and was constantly making silly jokes.

[@sharrdx5956]

He hasn't

[@PerfectKirby]

I doubt it, considering he doesn’t mention once that there is a book

[@herlocksholmes-uv5qw]

And Bluebell's jokes were something that captain Holly appreciated because it kept him grounded, reminding him that there were still fun things despite the trauma they went through

[@Rothbourne]

Clearly has no idea a book exists even.

[@squirlis1189]

yeah, bluebell did that shit a lot.

[@kennyshoes]

Who else thought the 3D animation was clunky?

[@starrie818]

It was v e r y

[@JONNOG88]

Looked like the graphics from a Nintendo 64 game. From 1996 😒😓

[@onidaaitsubasa4177]

It was a bit, they needed to vary the pacing of the keyframes more but maybe they were rushed by a deadline or a short time frame. If they really would have gotten more realistic they could have motion captured some actual rabbits running around.

[@WolfMoonWings]

Its so bad honestly.

[@RobertoRafaf]

The Dragon Prince prepared me for this

[@huntercool2232]

27:05 Steve: “Why would you break the tension?” *Because that was the goal. They knew they were about to die so he was trying to cheer his friend up.*

[@Loris-Card]

Exactly

[@one4all123]

Hey Steve would you mind doing a review on this movie called 9? It’s a little creepy animated movie that I recommend Edit: God! Over 250 likes? Thanks guys (and gals as well)

[@darkmya19]

One 4 All such a good movie 👍

[@veronicapiccinini7956]

pkslider725 I love 9. I approve your suggest. And besides, there is Elijah Wood, aka Frodo Baggins🤩❤️

[@laciehinds7768]

One 4 All damn, that was a fucking decent movie, I give that movie a solid 8/10 :)

[@yunirkamartinez6157]

One 4 all? I like your name, it reminds me of MHA :>

[@Pixel__Hearts]

legendary movie

[@hyperbolicraider4848]

Me seeing the thumbnail: *wait?... THERES A REMAKE???*

[@wolfheartspirit97]

Michael Haflich Me: there was an original 0.o

[@kyleenguyen9590]

Michael Haflich dumby

[@schattenvolkofficial1121]

Actually already a second remake. There's also a british-canadian TV series from 1998 ... 🤷‍♀️ And yes. More polished up for kids!

[@_kittyctgamer_4571]

I said: there was an original movie?!

[@jamiebentley142]

But wait there’s not 😐

[@notsosadbart6343]

The animation in the remake looks like an unfinished xbox cutscene. I can't stand it

[@gavinbunting7354]

I can stand it better than the stupid animation of the movie, it was just so bad to me

[@シズさん-b9b]

i think they both have their goods & bads

[@luckyluke-ni9ml]

No it looks like a play station 3 game.

[@Xoro2203]

😤

[@rdsharma7467]

Its according to the client requirements so u cant even critise the animations and other aspects

[@ghadrackpotato960]

Watership Down will always have a special place in my heart. I saw the original on TV as an evening special broadcast. I was so moved I cried, my mom explained to me that there was a book, and we spent several weekends scouring used bookstores till we found a very nice used copy that I hold dear to this day. This seems to me to be one of those things that really didn't need a remake unless they were really going for broke to do a perfect book translation....

[@wolpard2033]

I dont know why so many people expect the BBC version to take things from the '78 version when the newer one was not using the old film as source material... of course they're going to do things differently because the source material is the book itself. The old film was more successful visually but imo I think the newer one captured the book better. When reading the book I honestly didn't get the same "creepy" vibes the '78 film induces, and I think the 2018 version captures the vibe of the book a bit better. But to each his own.

[@joshuagonzalez902]

Same

[@n9nex19]

This wasn't a good review. But wait, it was.

[@Just_Kumoki]

This must be the most clever comment of the video. But wait, it's not.

[@eliseotorres7958]

Are you a dick? Nah.

[@davidmcginness6718]

Normally love your stuff but I completely disagree with this review. I think the core of the problem here is you view the 2018 version as a reboot of the original film when it's really a new adaptation of the book. It may not sound like it but that's a very important distinction For example, you say Woundwort isn't meant to be sympathetic and his story should be ambiguous but that would only be true if this was going by the old film. In the book, Woundwort has a backstory almost identical to the new version from the loss of his parents to being a hutch rabbit. In this sense I think the new is superior because it portrays the villain in the way the source material intended. Another is the bizarre criticism that it doesn't include Bright Eye. This song is completely irrelevant to the book and was really only in the old film because it was by a popular singer at the time. There's no necessity to include it. I understand you are comparing the two but deviations from the old film are not problems in themselves as it is not an adaptation of it. To really compare the two as adaptations you should really have looked at their source material.

[@b.3432]

THANK YOU OMG idk why the hell he kept referring to the animated movie as "The original". When it wasn't at all the prime source material for the BBC series.

[@1trevor30]

@@b.3432 Because the movie is what made it popular and is what's known. No on cares about the book. All comparisons are made from the movie because it's all anyone knows of the material aside from a few book worms who read just about anything to pass the time.

[@retrothehare4053]

I completely agree with you and ur argument

[@fermitthekrog6318]

David McGinness but He wasn't comparing the book to anything. He was comparing the original movie to the new one and telling us his opinion.

[@42ndblaze43]

David McGinness deviations from the older film aren’t the problem it’s the fact that the reboot watered them down and made the narrative so boring

[@alex9581]

honestly, the bastardised kehaar was my favourite part of this miniseries:i was so bored with the way they'd done the rest of it that I thought it was hilarious that he just left because he didn't want to deal with it and then came back because he felt like it. he felt like a weird wildcard that I was totally here for

[@Nicole_Night]

“But wait, it’s not.” -Steve Reviews, 2019

[@emmimoilanen6701]

I still haven't checked out the remake since I'm still mentally scarred from seeing the original when I was five, haha. I do have to say, the style of the remake makes me a bit uncomfortable. There is something... weird about it. It reminds me of those old, awful computer animations that have this realistic skin slapped on top of them. And it disturbs me greatly.

[@emmimoilanen6701]

Also, regarding the weird explanation for needing to get the does: " Female rabbits can be more territorial than males and like to dig holes as this is their traditional role in the wild." So in the wild, female rabbits are actually the ones that dig the holes. But it still sounds kinda bizarre to just throw it in since having the females to be able to breed sounds much more believable.

[@DCreed013]

@@emmimoilanen6701 When I heard that part of the remake I was baffled as to why they changed it, but that does make a bit more sense. But still, that makes it a matter of 'female rabbits are more naturally inclined to dig' than 'female rabbits are the only ones capable of digging'. The bucks were even digging when the scene started! They could have dug out the new warren if they had to, but they can't reproduce without does. It comes across as a trivial thing to bring up when there's a far more pressing concern to address. The only reason I can think they made that the reason was to seem less sexist by giving the female rabbits a reason to be there other than as baby makers. But that fell flat when the only thing that came to my mind was a bunch of grown men from the 50's standing around saying 'we need women because men can't cook or clean!'. Yes you can, you've just never had to and don't want to because society deems that as 'women's work'. To me it comes across as more sexist than needing does to, you know, reproduce. Something they actually cannot physically do without does. I bet that BBC put that there with good intentions, but I don't think they thought them all the way through.

[@eddygendron8773]

@Dhara, oh hi Johnny.

[@TomHagge]

The Uncanny Valley, but with rabbits.

[@cyberwolf_1013]

Regarding the childhood trauma, I know where you're coming from, and I found the remake easier to watch. The nightmare inducing scene of the destruction of the home warren doesn't terrorize so much. There is far less blood and of rabbits ripping each other apart. To the worse or betterment of the story I couldn't really say.

[@P00rly_Mad3]

So did you just you know completely forget about how dandelion and sunflower fought each other because there was only one doe (strawberry) and that was definitely another reason they made pretty clear about getting doe’s. Not just for digging the warren.

[@jcohasset23]

It's still odd they gender changed Strawberry for the series.

[@caitlinsessom161]

I think you mean Dandelion and Hawkbit

[@VVen0m]

2018 remake of Watership down is well animated *but wait* *it's not*

[@randompersonlol7649]

The animation was.... *ok* but I feel like BBC used up all the money they could’ve used to make the animation better, on paying the voice actors. If BBC chose some good voice actors that would work for a low price, than I think the animation might’ve been *way better*

[@zerolayne8245]

I liked the animation...

[@toxicrelief2142]

@@zerolayne8245 liked it too, i dont know why everyone hates it so much

[@v.k.rt.m.6030]

@@toxicrelief2142 because it strays away sir.

[@ancestorsblues]

@@v.k.rt.m.6030 at least they actually remade it for the generations who haven't watched it like me.

[@hypnotizefilms8428]

This is a 2019 comment But wait, It's not

[@zvorakzekrom]

... 🤦‍♂️

[@ForkLefts]

@@angelicangielio this is an djdnrkkemmedmmxmxmfkx LrFLFKTOAGKKGTK FXJZ I just had a stroke But wait, I didn't, i banged my head on my keyboard

[@spinosaurusaegyptiacus7440]

This is a 2020 comment But wait It’s not

[@cuperthewolf]

@@spinosaurusaegyptiacus7440 this is a 9200 comment. But wait It *Not*

[@yuukokagami]

Who else didn't even *know* there was a remake before finding this video? **Raises hand**

[@emptyteacup8228]

*Also raises hand*

[@trubllz]

*Raises head* I hAvEnt evEr seEn aNy of thEM

[@NGRevenant]

I didn't need to know thanks a lot youtube you fucks

[@rufina4135]

*Jumps out of window will raising hand*

[@saschy1237]

Technically there 2 remakes-

[@dragonlord.nuggets132]

Steve: *grew up on scary sh-t like this* Me and 68% of his subscribers: *grew up watching bambi*

[@meevins]

I actually really enjoyed the remake and I want to watch it again. The animation was uncanny in places, like when the rabbits hop and their facial expressions but it's not that horrid...people are overreacting a lot. I do agree the whole Clover and Hazel thing drove me NUTS. Like why? What's the point? They should have made more time for Fivver...I felt like he barely got any screen time. The same with general wound wort (probably spelt their names wrong but oh well)

[@pbpeanut1144]

Same! I loved Fivver and wished there was some more character for him! And with the animation... if a story is a good story, I forgive the animation quality

[@meevins]

@@pbpeanut1144 My thoughts exactly- they replaced one of the key scenes for Fivver with Clover which was god awful. I do not understand why they did that. But yeah that's my mindset too. If the story is good enough I can forgive the animation. Not to mention I doubt the budget for this was that big. People shouldn't be expecting Disney quality.

[@gwenmattia9583]

It kinda annoyed me that clover and hazel didn’t have kids in the end. I liked the way how clover was more important and wasn’t as pointless as she was in the original, but I think hazels brother should have gone with her. I liked it better when he went.

[@Barbara-ud8cf]

but wait have you actually read the book?

[@pricklypear1704]

No he hasn't

[@kaylemkerr6989]

As a rule you should understand that a lot of people don't read fiction books these days! Maybe in education but not willingly. My statement however is not an assessment of the channel owner who I know little about.

[@thecatwhostacks2736]

Me and my freinds : *Quaking* Everyone at my school : *Mental break downs for everyone*

[@gbrown932]

Love the book. My favorite book of all time!

[@williamhiers1280]

I don't think so, since he doesn't act like he knows that the plot elements he's complaining about are from it.

[@McKampfschnitzel97]

In the book there was a whole chapter dedicated to Woundwort's past. It details his entire life and crucial experiences that caused him to become the person/rabbit he is, how the things he witnessed and survived formed his worldview and ideology. And I think it was actually a cool idea. It does remove some of the mystery around him, but aside from that I don't think it's a bad thing to make the audience feel sympathy for the villain. It adds complexity and is much more true to life than the old hero-villain dichotomy. The chapter on Woundwort shows that it is our experiences and traumas that shape our self. Woundwort had a very different life than Hazel, that led to him having a different picture of the world and the struggle for survival. Based on his experience and idea of the world he created an ideology that would (according to him) be more conductive to survival. If you know his history and character, it does make sense as to why he runs his warren in this way. You do understand why he came to the conclusion that this was the best way. It's the old "security vs. freedom" debate. Woundwort prioritizes security, because security guarantees survival. But strong security comes at the cost of individual freedom. Considering the size, stability and success of his warren, his means are somewhat justified - if survival is your only metric. Anyway, I don't think it's a bad thing that the remake included a small flashback to Woundwort's childhood. I think it's a bad thing that it didn't include more. Knowing Woundwort's motives gives the story much more depth (unlike the whole romance thing), as it explains why the warren is run in this way and thus makes the world more believeable. And it didn't reduce Woundwort's villainous nature at all, he remains an incredibly threatening force. Nobody was rooting for his survival at the end. While the story is about rabbits and their survival, it's also about humans. It is a great examination of human nature and the human condition. The contrast between Hazel and Woundwort is a great example of this and the deep understanding of humans Richard Adams had.

[@xXRyuzakixOokamiXx]

Ooof. You gotta read the book. Explains so much stuff so much better. The clover thing is so irritating. Hazel never even ended up with her. Romance never comes into play, it's all about mating and breeding. And Fiver has a vision that leads him to Hazel. And there's way too much wrong with how they do everything with kehaar. Why can't movies ever just follow the source material... Lol. The author doesn't even like the original cartoon movie. I wonder what he thinks of the remake...

[@b.3432]

Side note: Kehaar's foreign accent was there to emphasize that he came from far away, that he shouldn't have been in the area in the first place if not for the fact he got injured during migration

[@bartoszurbankiewicz1007]

Author died in 2016

[@xXRyuzakixOokamiXx]

Damn, sad that he died. At least he left something meaningful behind with this books. Lot of awesome people keep dying lately, what's up with that?

[@stephaniesmith2115]

hollywood should just give up, the book is always best 📚

[@jayydexter]

Ryuzaki Ookami at this point i dont think its supposed to be a down to the details remake its more like a easier to understand, modern, morw child appealing way of telling a classic

[@LukaTisus]

Blackberry and Dandelion aren't pointless characters. Dandelion lifted spirits during the journey to the Down by telling stories. Blackberry's intelligence got the rabbits out of some extremely hairy situations i.e: The dog in the woods that forced them across the creek, he figured out they could use the board to help Pipkin and Fiver cross because they were exhausted and wouldn't make the swim themselves. He attributed that knowledge to the boat they use to escape the Efrafans near the end of the story as well. Something that was sadly cut out of the remake and bothers me to no end.

[@marvelfanatic9535]

Speaking of Pipkin, I missed him

[@bunnymint3n]

Uhh Dandelion never told stories in the mini series, Bluebell did. Dandelion was the fast one, the one that saved Fivers life from the truck and he also saved them from the birds.

[@marvelfanatic9535]

Giraffe Academy but in the book, Dandelion told the stories

[@bunnymint3n]

Mariah Raichert Thanks for telling me, I only watched the mini series

[@marvelfanatic9535]

Giraffe Academy you’re welcome and I totally recommend the animated series from the 90’s 100%!!! Those were pretty cool! I mean granted they did stray far from the book but other than that still awesome

[@littlenugget7066]

i remember 12 year old me watching watership down, practically dying from laughter after that seagull said "piss off" (and yes i watched the old one and im surprised i wasnt disturbed af)

[@l.l.5201]

Where you watched it?

[@user-us7el6ss2l]

I read the book when i saw the PO bit

[@arumikahaven]

Is it weird I enjoy both the Netflix 2018 version and the original 1978 film equally? Along with the book? I literally love all three, can't pick which is my favorite and I've read the book five times

[@mallardduckjrh8048]

EremikaHaven no it’s not weird

[@ammonitetheseaserpent3761]

EremikaHaven Not weird. I haven’t read the book, but I do see that the BBC adaptation has advantages and disadvantages compared the original, and vice versa.

[@a.m.3000]

I have to be honest, I actually really enjoyed the 2018 version. Granted, I haven't seen the original film from 1978 and have not read the book, but I think that the 2018 version was at least decent if not good and I think some of the criticism in this vid stemmed more from the differences in style and tone between the original and the newer one.

[@RJz-gp2wx]

Same

[@megadracosaurus]

When it come's to Woundwort being sympathic, that's actually something from the books. The reader was told early on about Woundwort's past, so his past was never really much of a mystery. Everything was known about him. And I do recall that, if the author had written the novel again, he stated he would have liked to make Woundwort seem more sympathic. So to me, the BBC series simply tries to do both things.

[@GrubStLodger]

Also the reason Efrafa is a totalitarian state is Woundwort's paranoia about man discovering it, that's why it's not extended and feeding times are restricted.

[@megadracosaurus]

@@GrubStLodger I know that, yeah. It was explained in both the book and the BBC adaptation.

[@karniferous]

You know it's a based on a book, right? In the story, most of the changes you hated actually happened in the book lol. Its been a while but when they said the thing about the doe digging, I think that was a real reason in the book

[@callista6813]

As much as I like both, I feel that the Netflix series was closer to the book.

[@williampulfer-melville8536]

Even though Pipkin wasn't even in the remake for some reason

[@splinterguy332]

Watership up

[@wienerschnitzel1739]

More like Aircar up

[@dreysantillan]

@@wienerschnitzel1739 more like Airplane up

[@Pyralis]

Fireplane up

[@DoubleDeckerDave]

Earthmobile northwardd

[@arc3510]

Firecar diagonal

[@kashinimeyo]

The “excuse” that they need females to dig the burrows is actually a valid one. Female rabbits are the one to make the houses and dens for their little mating pairs. Male rabbits are basically male angular fish just less face melts and literally parasitic.

[@mittensfastpaw]

The more I Google after reading comments like this one about the subject. The more I see ignorance won on the matter.

[@unofficialmajima617]

@@mittensfastpaw ok mittens

[@littlewoofie6995]

The one thing I’ll always hate about the 2018 remake was the fact that in the original in the fight between Bigwig and Woundwort, when he asks him to come out, Bigwig says his chief has told him to defend this run out of his own loyalty which demonstrates his change of character in accepting Hazel as his leader. Whereas in this version, he just gets told to say it by Hazel and which really pisses me off since it just destroys anything left of Bigwig’s character. Personally, I don’t think Bigwig had a character in this remake

[@statrosapristina]

Nobody had decent characterization in the 2018 remake. It was dull, ugly, cheap, and the plot was an absolute mess. Hazel and Bigwig are the worst characters in the remake: the first became a useless and dumb rabbit, the second became an insufferable bully. The beautiful friendship they had in the book and the movie? Gone.

[@pomegranatemistress8588]

I'm so over remakes of 2d animation. The art is one of the key things that define the movies.

[@dead9247]

Yes. CGI is not better in all cases.

[@janibii_608]

except its not, its a remake of the book.

[@kawaiifishyfish7831]

i actually really liked the remake. I thought it was a fun watch. In the original it was kinda hard for me to fallow along and understand what was happening. I thought in this one was a lot easier to fallow. I didn’t think the animation was too bad. Some parts are better then others but this is like four hours long and it would be extremely expensive to try to animate everything in a higher quality. Plus I don’t feel like water ship down is that popular. I’m in high school and nobody knows about and are probably against watching it because they probably think it’s just a stupid four hour tv show about bunnies. So why would they spend a ton of money on something that probably isn’t going to blow up and go viral. I really did think this was going to be horrible but in my opinion it turned out good. I’m no movie critic tho. feel free to disagree cause I’m literally pulling this out of my ass.

[@miraculousninja1739]

I watched this movie when I was a kid and I remember the whole scene where Sandleford was being destroyed and rabbits were dying VERY frightening and disturbing. He forgot or dismissed the fact when he said that he missed this part in the remake is that the producers DO have to be mindful that CHILDREN are watching these episodes. I for one don’t blame the producers for toning the violence and gore factor down. It was downright CREEPY in the original, even for adults.

[@miraculousninja1739]

For the record, I really I really liked the remake

[@Wasabiwhatamidoing]

I agree with u

[@cobaltthetiger946]

I agree with you that the remake was better. It was hard for me to follow along with the original Watership Down show. And honestly, I’m not one who enjoys old-timey shows. The remake of Watership Down was in my opinion much better. Despite the emotionless faces in most of the scenes in the remake, I still think it was still really good overall.

[@gavinbunting7354]

I like the 2018 version too

[@yes-vz4ut]

15:39 "YU sTuPhiD BuNNehs! Yu GoT noH MeYTz!" "ThEh AH *MEYTZ* " "tHEH AAH *cHEeIIZ!* "

[@brigidtheirish]

With the romantic thing, another point is that *these are rabbits.* They don't *do* romance. The bit with does being better diggers than bucks is mentioned in the book (does *are* the primary diggers), but it's more an issue during the journey when they have to find shelter for the night, not when establishing the warren. Woundwart's backstory is part of the book. I understand why they wanted to include it, but what they showed was such a small part and at such an awkward time that they would've been better off cutting it entirely. Ugh, and Kehaar. Why did they feel the need to ruin this character. And the other characters. Yeah, I also have serious issues with the new animation. The animals move a lot more realistically in the original adaptation. Heck, they *move* in the original adaptation. Some of the scenes in the new one look like they just threw rabbit models at each other.

[@brigidtheirish]

@@sasha5534 You should read the book sometime. The author does a very good job making these feel like what real rabbits would be like if they were a little smarter instead of just 'anthropomorphic rabbits.' One thing that's definitely clear in the book is that rabbits *do not* have a concept for romance.

[@brigidtheirish]

@@sasha5534 Uh, no. Anthropomorphic is attribution human traits to something that isn't human. The original was careful to keep the rabbits *rabbits.* Just adding intelligence isn't anthropomorphic. Also, adaptations are judged by how faithful they are *all the time.*

[@veelalynne]

I was actually sort of frustrated by the way they portrayed Woundwort’s backstory. His parents and siblings were killed by a farmer and a weasel, not a fox. That, and they just shoehorned his back story in like an afterthought.

[@brigidtheirish]

@@sasha5534 Riiight. Here's the thing, the quality of the adaptation and the quality of the final product on its own are two different things. Ever seen the Atlas Shrugged trilogy? I don't recommend it. They're quite faithful to the book, making them good adaptations, but they suck as movies. I, Robot, on the other hand, is a good movie but more 'inspired by' than 'based on' the source material. This Netflix/BBC version of Watership Down is a bad adaptation. Its quality as a series separate from the source is... kind of meh. The animation is *bad.* The writing is debatable. The voice acting is fine given what they had to work with.

[@Lauren_Helene]

Agh, I miss in the movie when the seagull told the Rabbits to 'Piss off.' if only they added it.

[@libbysanimals_8306]

Something I hated about it was that it had no bright eyes, like seriously, what is Watership down without bright eyes?

[@benm1414]

My mother said I'm too romantic...

[@bananapoptarts246]

@@benm1414 she said your dancing in the movies

[@benm1414]

Omg and @@bananapoptarts246 would you believe I started to believe her? But then I saw (your comment) and I knew...

[@Twilightwolf34820]

They had it playing in the credits LOL

[@pixienyx4306]

The thing with the brow animation, I can only say one thing. Ice Age. The Mammoths (I can’t remember the names, except Manny and Peaches), are so dependant on their eyes, since their mouths are hidden, but when you look at them during scenes of emphasised emotions, they nail it IMO. When they’re tired, hurt, upset, happy, it doesn’t matter, it’s so beautifully conveyed, and I think if they’d put the effort in here, it could’ve been done. But it’s the BBC, and if they’re willing to screw pensioners out of TV licenses, then a lack of effort is nothing…..

[@Ekami-chan]

I was really annoyed with remake not making characters distinct enough, apart from big wig, all the rabbits look exactly the same :/

[@webber9111]

I payed more attention to the personalities and payed less attention to the looks.

[@LittleMissSkelling]

I thought the exact same thing

[@theshyguy4932]

I could only tell apart fiver big wig and captain holly

[@pupville1055]

I disagree, I think they stand out more than they did in the 1978 movie. The only characters that were more distinctive were Bigwig, Pipkin, Blackberry and Holly, the rest all just look alike. Which is fine buuuuut it makes it really hard to tell them apart sometimes.

[@SifGreyfang]

If Im being honest. The remake has so much more conflict and explains a little more things that the first one didn't. Like how woundwort got his scar and his origin story in a way and we got to see more of the dictatorship style of woundworts den. The voices were nice and I thought they matched each of the characters.

[@meevins]

Agreed. My favourite parts of this where when it was focusing on woundworts den. At first his backstory felt a bit forced, it would have been nice like he said to have some sort of flash back when he was facing the dog. But then again his backstory makes sense in a way but doesn't paint him as being overly sympathetic which is a trend I hate. He was afraid of the fox, too afraid to warn his family which resulted in them dying. It explains some of his motivations at least which I found nice.

[@chinbunny1]

i loved wounwort in this. i thought his character was well developed and much more intimidating then the first movie. this one was closer to the book

[@deadaccount5893]

I loved woundwort, but I’m not going to be fancy and do a long ass message XD.

[@supersly2284]

I think I like the remake because it really went deep with the characters and although Clover took out some Fiver parts, I think there was enough development for him as well as Clover and the others. I also like how fun and lovable BigWig is in the remake.

[@Grimalkind]

To be fair, I believe the 2018 version is more a remake of the book than the movie. Like, they clearly didn't really try to copy or mimic the scenes from the movie, but it follows the same story, so that's the impression I get...? Not sure, though. I'll need to watch it for myself. Personally, I think the models for the rabbits look good alone, and in scenes with only subtle movement (like dialogue scenes where theres small changes in pose and the like) the animation works well. However, not enough attention was paid towards the action scenes, clearly...

[@kitsygirl]

Dude, that 2018 version was NOTHING like the book.

[@JMysticStar7]

@@kitsygirl Have you even read the book?

[@kitsygirl]

@@JMysticStar7 it's my favorite book. I've read it cover-to-cover several times a year since I was a young girl. So much was changed or left out of this 2018 cartoon that it was barely recognizable as the story I love so much.

[@frenchfry9830]

The 2018 remake is way better then the original BUT WHAT ITS NOT

[@Someviewingviewer]

Jelly Roll it’s but wait it’s not but *what* it’s not

[@randompersonlol7649]

Jellyfish Art BUT WAIT IT *IS*

[@randompersonlol7649]

Lmao my other reply was a joke, plz don’t take it seriously!

[@adamcheck4941]

kehar in the original is nice in the remake he is kind of a dick

[@SlapDrink]

I'm a huge fan of Watership Down and all of its media representations, I did like the Miniseries, (I don't blindly think its the best adaption ever) and felt like it did the BOOK justice more than the original film. On the subject of the warren needing females it's explained in the books that they need does for both the fact that they need a next generation AND that the bucks can't dig as well as does can, Adams used "The Private Life of Rabbits" by Ronald Lockley being the basis of instincts and based these traits on actual behaviors that exist in nature. Bucks don't dig unless forced too. He is not trying to do any anthropomorphism other then rabbits having some higher intelligence and a have a rich oral culture. I mean they can't count to five! Hrairoo, which is Fiver's Lapine name literally means "Little Thousand" or "countless." Woundwort was elaborated well in the book as well, which the original films didn't really mention, but is somewhat surprising when the reader is explained his creation by Adams along with his incentives and reasoning for being so... Woundwort. As for character swapping, it was also common in the original film as much as the book was, and the lack of Pipkin is kind of bit of a downer, I assume because he'd be near worthless in this remake. Secondary Characters and Deuteragonists in the book don't have much in the way of development, they were a lot less complex and shallow, it wasn't until "Tales of Watership Down" did most female and secondary characters get really more complex. Also, bit of trivia, Adams based the other rabbits personalities on people he met during the war. I felt like you weren't really talking much about the *actual* original material, the book, rather than another derivative. Should of read/listen the books my dude, its great, even if its just a "book about rabbits."

[@agravemisunderstanding9668]

i remember the original rabbit death scene gave me nightmares for a year

[@grumpyface2553]

You make some very good points, but I especially don't agree with what you said about fleshing out secondary characters. Yes, characters are more likely to die in a series like this. But if all but three or four characters have the personality of cardboard, why should we care if they die? There needs to be investment in the characters, in ALL of them, for there to be a reaction when they die. Otherwise, they die just for shock value. And that's boring.

[@SBaby]

7:55 - Um, female rabbits are better at digging dens in real life. This is a scientifically accurate fact. That's probably why the line is there.

[@Pjays_]

My little sister watched watership down 2018 It was fun

[@MrDunkleostus]

That’s how you know it wasn’t a good remake. The original was, as he said, a cesspool of childhood trauma. It was visceral and blood soaked.

[@francomasiniofficial]

And now she lives at a mental hospital and makes cute little stickers out of sticky notes

[@metaljacket8128]

Luke Hermary Okay, it wasn't _that_ bad.

[@Pjays_]

@@metaljacket8128 never said it was for me at least

[@skileaver]

YOU CAN NOT CHANGE MY MIND THE 2018 VERSION WITH FREAKING AMAZING ❤️

[@valiovansku6453]

I've been looking for this comment. It is when you don't mind the animation and just enjoy when we have this kind of a series of brutal rabbit world

[@Soldiershak]

How could they not have the pyss awff! That was iconic

[@TheGoldenSword12]

But wait it's not

[@jennacarr818]

I would love for you to read the book and get your perspective on it. The original film does a much better job of sticking closer to the book (except for Violet's existence, which is not a thing, and Woundwort killing Blackavar... also not a thing) than the remake does, but even then it has its own edits (probably for budget and time reasons) that just don't add up. In the book, the bucks actually start to dig the warren with the help of Strawberry (who, by the way, is a buck in the book), but the book explains that the digging of a burrow is the natural job of a doe digging for her expected litter. The Effrafan does also express how much of their discontent was due to reabsorbing their litters before birth (rabbits do this naturally under stress) and not being allowed to dig. Also! The book never explains WHO Clover's litter is by (I assume it's Holly, because it explains that Holly takes a liking to Clover because she seems more robust than the other hutch rabbits), though it's never outright stated.

[@annarusson3999]

Finally, he compares them

[@MxLemonRat]

I’d like to ‘briefly’ touch on the “bucks can’t dig” argument, because it isn’t wrong. When I was younger I owned a lot of rabbits and we didn’t keep them in hutches, we kept them in cages made for rabbits. But we had two groups of rabbits that were in wooden frames that could be moved around. I mention this because there is no wire bottom or anything, but there was wire connecting all the wood, both of these elements are important. We had two, one for bucks, one for does. Both escaped quite regularly, but how they escaped differed between the bucks and the does. The does would, as you would expect, dug tunnels out of the enclosure. The bucks on the other hand, would make no attempt at digging, and instead chewed through the wire or found holes in it to escape from. I’ve seen a couple people say that bucks don’t dig because their claws are made for fighting, and that is very likely, now I’m not sure if it’s true but it absolutely makes sense. The stronger buck can more effect my protect the young AND the mother while she is pregnant. The bucks we had would frequently fight with one another, especially if it was over a female. I even watched the 2018 version of Watership Down with my mum, who was quite knowledgeable on rabbits and had observed what I just explained to you, and she said it was accurate. Plus, when they say they need does, they also say they need them as diggers, as well as companions and mothers. All this to say: Bucks don’t dig.

[@dantedoomsday]

-Some of your examples are kind of ridiculous if you have read the book. It was Blackberry's idea to cross the river (not Hazel's), it was said in the book that does normally dig the warren, the pronunciation of Kehaar's name is subjective (I said it just like the CGI movie), we do find out Woundwort's backstory in the book so he's not a "mysterious" villain -A few things were on point though. In the book Bigwig did tell Woundwort he can fight so he could join Efrafa, replacing Fiver with Clover to find Hazel did take away a little from Fiver and Hazel's relationship, in the book the rabbits did trick Kehaar into thinking getting does was his idea (and they did make Kehaar a wanker in the CGI movie which sucks), Woundwort's backstory was changed in the CGI movie (in the book it was used to show how he became evil), animation/art direction/music is definitely better in the '78 animated movie, the "shitty joke" when Woundwort is at Watership Down was pretty dumb -Also I did enjoy the CGI movie showing the fox attacking the Efrafan rabbits since in the book (and '78 animated movie) Bigwig is the one that tells Hazel what happened and we're never "shown" it. I enjoyed both movies, but definitely read the book. It's amazing!

[@crookedcrowstudio3135]

I agree with a lot of your opinions. But I wish you had read the book as well. It would’ve helped in your assessment. For instance, bucks CAN’T dig as well as does. And the book covers that. That’s as not some BS that the show invented. However, I did not like this show. I was very disappointed. The book is without a doubt the best. But the movie did a great job of paying it tribute. So beautifully crafted. And it captured the spirit of the novel. This show did not. I can say very little about it that I enjoyed. I thought Fiver was portrayed well. And I enjoyed how much they used Lapine (the rabbit language) throughout the story. That’s pretty much it. My biggest issue was definitely the romance. Richard Adams was sure not to give his rabbits a romantic nature. They wanted does so they could mate. That’s pretty much it. But this show had to turn Watership Down into freaking Dawson’s Creek with all its sappy romance. Hazel and Clover (the worst by far), Hyzenflay and Holly (what!?) and Bigwig and Strawberry (who was a DUDE in the book!) Ugh. This is my favorite book and one of my favorite movies. I’ll stick to the originals.

[@lilahphilips8098]

lmao i love you for pointing that out (about the "romantic nature" and also Strawberry.

[@courtneygrier2015]

Watership Down has been my favorite book since I was a kid. And other than the animated movie, which pandered to my little goth heart back in the day, they have an older, kid friendly TV series which is actually quite good. But I had no idea this even existed!!! How...

[@rebeccabriggs9452]

I dunno if anyone else commented on this or not (too many comments to wade through lol), but the one thing I will state for the remake is the joke? During the tense situation, this was actually one of the characterisations of one of the rabbits. They were literally known throughout the entire book for making "dumb" jokes in scary/stressful/upsetting situations as an attempt to lighten the mood and help everyone feel better. One of the rabbits who makes it out alive from the old warren goes as far as to state if it hadn't been for that rabbit and their crappy jokes they probably wouldn't have survived. It's not a popular thing among the majority of the rabbits, but it is accepted that it is done in the intention to help and not to hinder. So if they've added that, it's probably one of the few things that I will clap my hands and say "well done" for.

[@commandermickey]

I watched the 2018 version And thats how i got introduced to watership down *and i loved both versions*

[@benm1414]

Now go watch the 2nd version so you can get the full experience. 1st= Movie 2nd= kids series (tamed down) 3rd= Netflix Miniseries

[@jz00826]

The CG is not as graphic as the original But the CG has one HELL of a soundtrack Yes the dog scene was dragged out but that ost made it all up for it

[@themeekwarrior]

I liked that Keehar in the original had a foreign accent and spoke in broken language, as it illustrated communication between two extremely different animals very well. Also I don't see a need to change the motive for the rabbits needing does. They are animals in a survival situation after all, and while women in real life have the option of having children, rabbits would need children if they wanted the trouble of finding a new home to mean anything, and more babies gives their group the best chance of survival. They seem to take great pride in their united effort to survive even though any one of them could be snatched away in an instant from natural causes.

[@kittycatwild9283]

*In the books* They do explain the General's story, I think the series wanted to add that. Though, it wasn't necessary, it was just for others to know what he went through I guess. -Even though they even didn't even make it accurate in the series :\- In the books, it never shows Bigwig actually seeing the Efrafa rabbits and leading the fox into them. Like the movies, Bigwig comes back to the rabbits, panting, and just explains. They could of wished it like this, or it was budget or no time. In the books, Bigwig does complain about hating to dig, some of the bucks as well. They do mention, "does dig, not the bucks!" However, they do it anyway without the does. Then when they add the hutch rabbits, they begin to fight over the does. Yada,yada.. WE get the point. In the books, some of the characters were barely even shown. Like Speedwell and Acorn. *I agree on giving the point to the movie. I believe, despite their time, the movie played it better and was more accurate.* Ps. I'm so glad that you agree with me on a lot of the negative sides of the series. Thank you~

[@inarasart]

Ok cool BTW Love your profile!

[@kittycatwild9283]

@@inarasart Thank you, I love it too. I've had it for years now.

[@inarasart]

@@kittycatwild9283 Awww no problem! 😄

[@french_latt3632]

6:11 DUDE. *BROS BEFORE DOES*

[@elizabethshaw7472]

In addition to Fiver vs Clover finding Hazel after being shot, Fiver also had his visions, so it not only made more thematic sense for Fiver and Hazel's bond to have Fiver be the rescuer, it also made more logistical sense for how Fiver knew where Hazel was.

[@chika8957]

I actually loved the 2018 version. I know it had its flaws but at least it’s better than the other Watership Down animated series. It did have my attention and it got me over my fear of the original. I would really love to read the book. Love your videos and always enjoy when I get a bell that you post a new video

[@woodyboi7776]

I

[@LukaTisus]

Lol you mean the animated series where the Bigwig and most of the Efrafan rabbits looked like a deranged cross between a hare and a lion?

[@peterholdridge]

Females we're needed for digging in the book and this accurate to rabbits. Did you not read the book or do homework?

[@kitsygirl]

In the book, it mentioned several times that bucks didn't *want* to dig, that it didn't come naturally to them, but that they were certainly capable when necessary. Of course, they are used to the natural order of things (does doing all of the digging in a warren), so are reluctant to start, until Blackberry points out that if they wanted to stay on the down, they would have to alter their ways. So the bucks dig out the warren themselves. In fact, it isn't until after the Honeycomb has already been completed that they even begin to look for does--and not for digging. It's because they realize that without does to breed, their warren will die off.

[@catherinespark]

Your point is right but do you really need your second, passive-agressive sentence?

[@42ndblaze43]

Peter Holdridge And how does this matter?

[@callmewhatever.7963]

@@catherinespark Obviously, you always leave a passive-agressive sentence when you prove someone wrong.

[@birdgvee4982]

Steve. You CAN'T just start playing Bright Eyes IN THE FLIPPIN BACKGROUND. I cannot concentrate on your review through my tears!

[@Backup_1_]

Why does bigwig seem angry all the time in the remake

[@meevins]

Ikr. If they wanted to go down that path they should of had him start of angry but soften up over time- Having him be so angry all the time was irritating. Trying to cover it up with him being a "hot head" didn't help.

[@treenaturtle1585]

Because that's how he was in the original book i believe In the original movie Bigwig never questioned Hazel's authority and always went through with what he did. In my opinion it was more entertaining and gut wrenching to watch Hazel and Bigwig struggle for the leadership of the group and it was satisfying near the end of the series to see Bigwig finally submit to Hazel's leadership.

[@martijnbouman8874]

@@treenaturtle1585 Bigwig was a very interesting character in the book, but there was no struggle for leadership between Hazel and Bigwig. Neither Bigwig nor Hazel actively strived to be Chief Rabbit, but the role fell naturally upon Hazel, and because Bigwig came to respect him, he went with it.

[@treenaturtle1585]

@@martijnbouman8874 I suppose what I meant by "that's how Bigwig was in the book" is referring to how the original commenter was wondering why Bigwig was so angry. From what I remember he was always a little bit of a hothead.

[@martijnbouman8874]

@@treenaturtle1585 He was a little bit of a hothead indeed. The personality of Bigwig in the remake is largely based on an exaggeration of one of the many character traits of the Bigwig in the books.

[@cjtheprop-maker]

Steve, you've reviewed the original and the remake, but you haven't covered the TV series

[@MistyRat]

Aaaaaaaaa I'm tempted to get r/whooshed because I need less self esteem

[@jejtherusheddoodle23]

The _WHAT?_

[@cjtheprop-maker]

@@jejtherusheddoodle23 There was a Watership Down TV series. It aired when I was a kid in the early 2000s. It was geared more towards kids, so the violence was toned down, but still present. It deviated from the novel and original film in several ways, like BlackBerry being a Doe, not a Buck as well as several others, but I enjoyed it. I really think Steve should give it a watch and tell us what he thinks.

[@TheInternetIsDeadToMe]

Thanks for this video. The original film means a lot to me as it was a big part of my childhood. I feel you’ve articulated what makes it such a classic. Keep up the awesome work.

[@mossy_milo]

The fact that the rabbits in the remake walk like dogs makes me exceedingly uncomfortable

[@wolffox172aj6]

I love water ship down! In the 1978 version, the seagull says "crap" XD

[@edelweissbunny5556]

And piss off lol

[@jezzzieful]

Can you do the older watership down 2D animated show?

[@aiden.prentice1287]

jezzzieful he has already done it

[@jezzzieful]

@@aiden.prentice1287 I can't find it in that case. Has it been taken down?

[@chou356]

@@aiden.prentice1287 no that was the movie he's talking about the TV series

[@aiden.prentice1287]

@@chou356 kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5jXZHZvj9iJn8k

[@aiden.prentice1287]

@@jezzzieful i don't blame you for not finding it, it is 2 years old. here you go kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5jXZHZvj9iJn8k