Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Here is the BBFC judgement on Watership Down, given in 1978.

http://www.bbfc.co.uk/search/releases/watership%2Bdown

Contains very mild language, mild violence and threat.

Just because something is pre-9pm doesn't mean it is directed at kids.

If you wouldn't show/want your kids to see absolutely anything that is on before 9pm just check. Simple as.

It's a pretty well known darker than you'd think movie.

And the news is way worse. A child will be much more traumatised watching the aftermath of the brussels attack or something of that ilk than watership down

 Graphite wrote:
Except that's not what happened.

I was going for comedic exaggeration. While I accept you, and possibly no-one, found it funny, I think it's impossible that you failed to pick up on its obvious exaggeration.

Channel 5 showed this at 14:25 in the afternoon, after two "pets make you laugh" programs and before a "greatest animated movies of all time" program, according to their program guide. It's not exactly lobbing it into the middle of Milkshake or CBeebies, is it? Seems a perfectly reasonable slot to put the show on.

Pets that make you laugh.
Pets that make you laugh.
Animated movie about rabbits searching for a new home.
Animated movie classic.

It's not that much of a stretch to think that parents might be lulled in to something of a false sense of security, is it? I mean, if someone saw that line up I think it'd be very strange to think 'I better check that animated movie doesn't involve wild dogs tearing rabbits apart'.

You could make a similar argument that the Jeremy Kyle show or some other godforsaken piece of horror television with the dregs of humanity screaming at each other shouldn't be shown in the morning because "kids could be watching". Or the news. There's a lot of really nasty stuff on the lunchtime news.

Jeremy Kyle is a known quantity. It's also known that the news contains some pretty bad stories from time to time (though most of that goes over the heads of kids, and the coverage itself generally isn't graphic). Where that stuff is pushing new boundaries or is more mature than usual it generally comes with warnings.

Watership Down didn't have warning like that, and it's a screw up. It happens, whatever.

The fascinating thing is the people acting like nothing went wrong, like it's okay if two year olds get sat down to watch Fiver's home get destroyed. Or the people arguing that parents should be expected to research every single thing coming up on tv, because there's just no possible way that a tv station and an audience could build a mutual understanding of what kind of material will be shown and when. Those arguments are amazing, because they're deeply ridiculous, and driven by some issue I can't begin to understand.

The thing is - in the UK this is an extremely well known film. And the people of an age to have young children now, are the people who would have seen (and been traumatised by!) Watership Down back when it first came out. I wouldn't have put it on for my kids for exactly that reason. I don't think there's much of an argument for parents not knowing about it.

Funny thing is that it was pretty well known back in the day here in the States, and was shown on broadcast television. Of course, that was before all the hysteria over violence in cartoons led to old Warner Bros. stuff getting heavily edited for broadcast T.V., and they stopped showing the original Johnny Quest for a long time.

It despairs me that this pussfooting, mollycoddled society that finds this simple and elegant film too much for our current generation of pre-teens.

When I saw the threat title I expected it to be about fundamentalists complaining at the film being aired on Easter Sunday for religious reasons. Because of the 'easter bunny' meme diluting the holy festival.

This was even worse. Oh Britain how far have you fallen and so quickly.

Thing is these same kids that the complaining nanny minded parents are afraid over will be exposed to all sorts of gak through other kids internet connected tablets.

I would be far more concerned with what kids see on 4chan in the playground than the certification of Watership Down.
In a way these overly urban and detached from reality parents are the main problem. Douglas Adams story has a setting of real life in the countryside for wild animals, it has no content you wont find on Animal planet or the BBC nature documentaries, and those also raise the ire of safe space seeking emotional cripples.

And good call whoever mentioned Plague Dogs, though in many ways that was a more adult film as it was primarily av human political story with animals as primary POV characters, wheras Watship Down is entirely an animal story.

 Orlanth wrote:
It despairs me that this pussfooting, mollycoddled society that finds this simple and elegant film too much for our current generation of pre-teens..

It is a bit much, and will always be a bit much, for pre schoolers which is almost certainly the actual reason for the complaints.

 Orlanth wrote:

I would be far more concerned with what kids see on 4chan in the playground than the certification of Watership Down.

Well good goddamn thing 4chan isn't broadcast on television as Happy Cartoon Hour, then.

 sebster wrote:

fething why do any of these arguments exist? Why do people have such hostility to a system where a ratings board assess content for maturity, and then stations only show stuff in the times and circumstances that are appropriate for the audience viewing them? Is it just a 'boo hiss censorship' argument that hasn't realised that nothing actually gets censored, only shown at certain times? Is that it, or is there some other argument I'm completely missing? Do people just want to moan about 'kids these days'?

Because some people are still mad about being ten years old already, Mum and still not being allowed into the cinemas to watch Gorefest 3.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
It despairs me that this pussfooting, mollycoddled society that finds this simple and elegant film too much for our current generation of pre-teens..

It is a bit much, and will always be a bit much, for pre schoolers which is almost certainly the actual reason for the complaints.

Actually most pre-schoolers of previous generations understood that bunnies were not immortal, and what foxes and raptors do to get by.
Our modern society is increasingly divorced from nature.

Even so you will always find someone somewhere too young or too sensitive, even for a U cetificate.

Rosebuddy wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

I would be far more concerned with what kids see on 4chan in the playground than the certification of Watership Down.

Well good goddamn thing 4chan isn't broadcast on television as Happy Cartoon Hour, then.

Need to point out the futility of mollycoddling in an age where the internet is readily accessible in the playground, and there are a lot of darkly netsavvy kids.

Rosebuddy wrote:

Because some people are still mad about being ten years old already, Mum and still not being allowed into the cinemas to watch Gorefest 3.

Because Muvva knows that Gorefest 3 is a crap film, there are car theft and police chases, but the cars are just standard street models. The filmmakers were too cheap to use any decent motor for the film. Also the blood looks fake and the action sucks. The chainsaw duels in Fields of Blood 4 are wicked though and like Gorefest 2 the joyriders take a real flash italian V8 to mow down grannies crossing the road. Wicked innit.

So I guess we are still in the Victorian mode that children should never be exposed to unpleasantness? Genuinely curious as it seems that the older traditions were to scare the bejeezus out of kids with ghost/monster tales so they would behave and teach them about serious stuff because even children have to deal with anger, fear, loss, etc. Or else they don't, and that usually turns out well....

 jmurph wrote:
So I guess we are still in the Victorian mode that children should never be exposed to unpleasantness? Genuinely curious as it seems that the older traditions were to scare the bejeezus out of kids with ghost/monster tales so they would behave and teach them about serious stuff because even children have to deal with anger, fear, loss, etc. Or else they don't, and that usually turns out well....

This topic has probably had more people posting on it than those who complained to Channel 5. It was a throwaway media piece designed to fill whatever space was available. Both the "think of the children" lot and the "Nanny state gorn mad" brigade were given more inane ammo for their causes.

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually most pre-schoolers of previous generations understood that bunnies were not immortal, and what foxes and raptors do to get by.

I grew up on a croft so I was around death from a very early age, from cats to cattle. In fact I used to help my dad slaughter and butcher sheep since before I was old enough to go to school and I found Watership Down disturbing when I first saw it when I was around 7.

My son is perfectly comfortable with animals dying, he has already had a couple of pets die but I will not let him watch it for a while yet because a dead pet is very (very) far removed from a cartoon bunny being torn to shreds.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

Actually most pre-schoolers of previous generations understood that bunnies were not immortal, and what foxes and raptors do to get by.

I grew up on a croft so I was around death from a very early age, from cats to cattle. In fact I used to help my dad slaughter and butcher sheep since before I was old enough to go to school and I found Watership Down disturbing when I first saw it when I was around 7.

My son is perfectly comfortable with animals dying, he has already had a couple of pets die but I will not let him watch it for a while yet because a dead pet is very (very) far removed from a cartoon bunny being torn to shreds.

I think most parents would be shocked by Waterships Downs content. I was horrored by the film when I first saw it and I grew up in a rural community.

i would agree that small children shouldn't watch it. I have to steel myself when I see it now.

I think part of the "shock" is that people either forget, or are ignorant of, just how harsh and violent animals (and nature) really can be.

Just today we were talking about "tom" cats (often male farm cats). If the mother isn't there to protect them, they will actually kill (sometimes eat, too) kittens. Lions also do this.

Those are just two examples....there are many more.

The world is an inherently violent place that often times requires violence to survive....we as humans have positioned ourselves anove the animalistic need to survive with violence into a position where we use violence for other goals.

Bunnies are the worst!

I'm quite sure you're supposed to see this at a young age and be disturbed by it. It's a rite of passage.

You know they never found the body of General Woundwort. He's still out there!

 George Spiggott wrote:
I'm quite sure you're supposed to see this at a young age and be disturbed by it. It's a rite of passage.

You know they never found the body of General Woundwort. He's still out there!

He was a tough old sod but a few hours in red wine softened him up a treat.