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.

"...but from that day on, distributors were told that if they tried to re-release Watership Down, the BBFC would get them. Such was their monument, and perhaps it would not have displeased them."

Absolutely cracking movie, and I'd forgotten just how good the voice cast is. But seriously, when you're young it's scary as all hell.

Well, any children frightened by Watership Down had better make sure to avoid the follow-up film, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Well, any children frightened by Watership Down had better make sure to avoid the follow-up film, The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

.... in which the radio in the van plays "Bright Eyes"

I saw Watership Down when I was tiny and it didn't do me any harm. What a bunch of wusses.

I have to wonder why, as a society, we still equate "cartoon about animals" as "for little kids". There have been loads and loads of cartoons that have been made for older (if not adult!) audiences, so why are we trying to pigeonhole an entire style of film?

Plus, I dunno about anyone else, but I've known Watership Down exclusively as "that violent rabbit cartoon". Not to say everyone must already know about it, but the movie undoubtedly has a reputation.

Many people still think all computer games are 'for kids' despite stuff like GTA having an 18 certificate on it.

I've never seen the movie in its entirety, and these scenes may be taken a bit out of context, but I'm not gonna lie, some of the death scenes from that movie do seem pretty brutal. Especially for a cartoon ostensibly aimed at children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPBck3xcUJc

And what in the gak is going on from 0:53 - 1:06? That was actually a little disturbing.

I 100% agree, though. I parents don't like it, change the channel.

The Railway Children deserves a U. It's got no violence, no swearing and a couple of possibly scary scenes, such as when they stop the train going into the landslide. Bascially though, it is a classic children's story with nthing objectionable in anyone's imagination.

Kilkrazy, this has to be one of the most idiotic and dangerous statements I've ever read on dakka.

You've got kids running around railway platforms, unsupervised, and breaking every health and safety code in the book!

You've got kids talking to complete strangers. You've got kids skipping school, thus stunting their emotional development, and yet, you claim it's harmless fun?

 Rootbeard wrote:
"One or two complaints each year". Hmm...

Still, it does feel like we've gotten softer about movies in recent years. Hunchback of Notre Dame is only rated G, whereas the far lighter Frozen is PG. I mean, I'm not sure if the distinction makes any real practical difference, but it's still a touch odd that the film with hellfire and damnation and Frollo is NOT the one flagged as "hey maybe take the toddler to that other cartoon".

Not really. Ratings have changed with the times as definitions of them changed. For example. Planet of the apes is G, despite the main characters booty hanging out the whole movie.
G is generally avoided by adults in theaters. They dont want to go see a kids movie, while PG is considered a "Family Movie" nowadays.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 IGtR= wrote:

I dunno, maybe feeling in any way that you have some responsibility towards your child.

I can tell that you aren't a parent (or if you are you are a new parent).

My point is merely that if your child is likely to be upset by things on the tv a tiny amount of effort can resolve this. There is nothing in watership down that is totally out of place for a children's movie, and there are plenty of saturday afternoon films that could distress your child.

I genuinely don't see what the problem is. If you have a particularly impressionable or easily scared child then you have to guard against this. I would, and do, expect the same from people with anyone vulnerable watching tv that may upset/trigger them.

Edited; keep it topical and impersonal, please. --Janthkin

I am 41 and I can still recall the bloody fight from the cartoon version.

Disturbing? Perhaps for some.

Memorable? Certainly.

I can see it getting a PG rating...deservedly so.

Still a great movie and book though.

Tone it down a bit, please. Anytime you find yourself directly comments directly at another poster, best take a moment to consider Rule #1.

This isn't a 'kids today are all soft!' or 'parents don't know how to parent!' issue. Watership Down has been scarring small children and rousing parental wrath ever since it was released. Maybe there's less excuse today, since it's been out for ages and looking stuff up on the internet is pretty easy (I think basically every review of the film mentions that it really isn't a charming cuddly rabbit story and maybe get ready for some blood), but it's not like this is something new...and, frankly, the way the movie was marketed doesn't do it any favors.

I can still remember the previews on my VHS copy of the animated Hobbit movie advertising it as a 'heartwarming tale of refugee rabbits' showing the characters scampering through a field. I mean, I had read the book, I wouldn't have been surprised by the movie's contents...but I think my mom might have if she rented it based on that preview

 IGtR= wrote:

My point is merely that if your child is likely to be upset by things on the tV a tiny amount of effort can resolve this.

By screening everything he watches? No one has the time for that and there generally isn't any need either as things that are likely to scare him or on TV when he has gone to bed.

Besides my approach, which is also used by every parent I know, has been entirely successful (aside from one unfortunate She Hulk Youtube video, although he would probably be quite appreciative of such things in 10 years or so).

 Kap'n Krump wrote:
I've never seen the movie in its entirety, and these scenes may be taken a bit out of context, but I'm not gonna lie, some of the death scenes from that movie do seem pretty brutal. Especially for a cartoon ostensibly aimed at children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPBck3xcUJc

And what in the gak is going on from 0:53 - 1:06? That was actually a little disturbing.

I 100% agree, though. I parents don't like it, change the channel.

Iirc that was a story of how a warren had all its exits blocked, and deadly gas pumped into it killing everyone save the rabbit who told the tale.

I thought it was myxomatosis? Nothing like trying to escape from a lightless corpse choked pit full of the bulging eye death plague, only to end up trapped in a regime run by a savage maniac.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
However, for the "why would you screen this on a Sunday afternoon!!!" nonsense - when the heck would you show it? It's not exactly post-watershed stuff. Just keep an eye on the TV, that's what the off switch is for.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ratings have changed with the times as definitions of them changed.

That sounds very much like a nicer way of saying we have gotten softer.

 Graphite wrote:
when the heck would you show it?

In the evening.

The real crime is that people are apparently watching channel 5.

 Rootbeard wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ratings have changed with the times as definitions of them changed.

That sounds very much like a nicer way of saying we have gotten softer.

no, we havnt. Everyone knows ratings are useless and a marketing tool.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Everyone knows ratings are useless

You should show more respect toward our brave seamen.

Im confused, what?

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Im confused, what?

Rating is a rank of sailor.

Well they must be useless cause I have never heard of that, and I come from a navy family
I kid I kid.

They're the enlisted. The scutters.
The swabbies.
The bubbleheads (I kid, those are CD - all certified delusional).

 Rootbeard wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ratings have changed with the times as definitions of them changed.

That sounds very much like a nicer way of saying we have gotten softer.

The original Die Hard is an 18 certificate. I'm convinced that if you released it today it would be a 15, and with marginally less swearing, a 12.

I don't get this resentment and hostility to the idea that tv stations can be a useful part in helping children to only see stuff that's age appropriate.

People invent arguments about parents being expected to sit there and google everything that comes on tv while their kids are watching, or an even weirder argument that kids should of any age should watch anything that comes on the tv because mollycoddling or kids these days or something.

"That was The Tellytubbies, next is Bing!, and after that fething Watership Down, because it's time you little bastard two year old learned some real life lessons."

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'?

 sebster wrote:
"That was The Tellytubbies, next is Bing!, and after that fething Watership Down, because it's time you little bastard two year old learned some real life lessons."

Except that's not what happened.

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.

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.

They go to twitter to complain but fail to use the TV guide or google to find out what the movie is about?
Next year Teletubbies eastern special

 Graphite wrote:
It's not exactly lobbing it into the middle of Milkshake or CBeebies, is it?

Its not far removed.

 Graphite wrote:
Or the news. There's a lot of really nasty stuff on the lunchtime news.

Nothing graphic though (does channel 5 have news?). You certainly aren't likely to see little fluffy cartoon animals getting slaughtered.