#Lepur says

[lepurcinus]

I will always hate with all my being the view and take of Watership Down as a depressing or dark story in the sense of "uhhhh life is suffering".

I don't care if it's in jest. The story isn't even remotely similar to that.

Where in this story of rabbits surviving together as a group facing adversity is that part understood? The story DOES have elements about death and the naturalness of it. They are rabbits after all. But death is far from being the most "in focus" element of the whole work, at least in that sense. Almost no important character dies or suffers an extremely tragic fate.

Yes, there is an entire warren being destroyed and yes, there are also rabbits that accept to die in order to have the security of being protected by a man, but those cases in particular are never treated as "normal" or left alone.

Do you even forget this little sentence right after the part about the rabbits being destroyed by the man?

"Would that the dead were not dead! But there is grass that must be eaten, pellets that must be chewed, hraka that must be passed, holes that must be dug, sleep that must be slept. Odysseus brings not one man to shore with him. Yet he sleeps sound beside Calypso and when he wakes thinks only of Penelope."

Or precisely the phrase with which begins that same chapter:

Rabbits (says Mr Lockley) are like human beings in many ways. One of these is certainly their staunch ability to withstand disaster and to let the stream of their life carry them along, past reaches of terror and loss. They have a certain quality which it would not be accurate to describe as callousness or indifference. It is, rather, a blessedly circumscribed imagination and an intuitive feeling that Life is Now. A foraging wild creature, intent above all upon survival, is as strong as the grass. Collectively, rabbits rest secure upon Frith's promise to El-ahrairah.

Come on, even the ending is a HAPPY ending. Hazel dies of old age, in peace being greeted by the legendary figure they admire as a hero, under the promise that all the rabbits will be well.

Certainly the depiction of Watership Down in nature is not just about how "realistic" it is just to show a dark morality of animals killing each other. Rather, it actually depicts these creatures' drive to survive and how circumstances lead them to break down barriers and accomplish things together that seemed impossible. How they all have a concept of life and struggle to reach it.

Nature in its essence and complexity is how it is actually created and affected by its own inhabitants, who through their actions are the origin of all good and bad.

And, call me crazy, but all this is FAR from representing misery and tragedy. It is pure light and hope.

Foolish anyone who believes that Watership Down is purely dark and depressing.

[lepurcinus]

I'm going to reblog this again because it made me think of something else and I really need to express it.

I already made a post talking about Blackavar's death but I never talked about this particular scene so it's time to say a couple of things about why this little scene bothers me.

And that is, the scene with Violet and the Falcon indirectly RUINS the characters.

Starting with Fiver. He does NOTHING to try to help Violet, he doesn't try to thump the ground to alert her of danger (you know, the most basic thing rabbits do when they notice danger), he doesn't try to get her attention, nothing, he just stands there watching.

You could justify to me that Fiver was too scared and did nothing because of the freeze (Tharn). But the scene tells me nothing of the sort, Fiver notices the bird's presence in advance and doesn't react at all, he doesn't look scared, he doesn't look uncomfortable. He just stands still quietly watching the bird carry off his companion only to have them come up with that fake sad "Oww Violet is gone :((((" scene.

Fiver is timid yes, but he's not a fucking fragile coward. I hate his portrayal here.

On the other hand you have that this scene ruins part of Hazel's character by making him look like an incompetent leader. You're telling me that this rabbit, who previously said he wasn't going to leave anyone behind and even stood by an injured Pipkin to prevent anything from happening to him

He didn't do anything to at least see that Violet will be okay? Not to mention that he doesn't say anything about her death either, he just lets it go. Also, as some people noticed, killing Violet made Hazel unable to prove his worth as Leader to Holly by getting the whole Sandleford gang to Watership Down safely, something that should be very important to highlight in his character here didn't happen.

In itself this whole scene is unnecessary. "But it's there to show the shock and hardship of the rabbits' lives" Some will say. Brother, almost the whole story is about that. Violet isn't even a character we've gotten to know enough about to make the scene more effective by giving us more resentment over her death. She just shows up, dies, and no one ever mentions her again for the rest of the movie.

Others will tell me: Well but by killing her off it emphasizes more on the importance of females and why they should get more. Bro, a rabbit society is not going to sustain itself with only one female and like 6 males, with or without Violet the quest for more does would have happened anyway (Whether or not you like the miniseries or the TV series in both the rabbits have a female before the events of Efrafa and yet the motivation remains). Moreover, considering that in the movie the release of the domestic rabbits was not successful Violet could have replaced Clover without so much trouble.

But then again, maybe it's just me getting even by overanalyzing less than a minute scene of an animated movie about talking rabbits

So Watership Down 1978...WTF?

It's not a secret that children's' films circa the 80s are sometimes violent and have themes that make us question how in the hell they were greenlit while looking through the lens of today's standards.

But there's a scene in Watership Down 1978 that I really wonder about. It goes as follows:

Our intrepid rabbits are a few days into their journey, having fled their home warren. The scene opens with them all asleep sheltered among beanstalks(?). One of the rabbits in the group wakes up and ventures out of the shelter of the garden in order to forage for food. While she's out in the open, Fiver wakes up and watches her...and suddenly this rabbit is just fucking snatched by a hawk. Fiver is so stunned by sudden death of his friend that he just sits there and stares until the rest of the rabbits wake up and join him, at which point he says in this forlorn voice, "Violet's gone."

...

Sad.

But this scene isn't in the book. Moreover, there is not even a character named Violet in the book. She doesn't even really do much as a character before her death and the only reason we know her name is Fiver's dialogue after she was killed.

So...why was this included?

This scene is 100% the product of the film and since they don't really linger on the death, it seems completely pointless aside from existing to disturb the audience.

I also want to point out the character Blackavar dies a pretty brutal death in the movie, but he doesn't die in the book. He even appears in the sequel Tales from Watership Down.

Again...why?

...

There's keeping true with adaptations and there's adding or subtracting stuff from the source material for more condensed storytelling, but making up a character just to kill them off and killing off a character who doesn't actually die in the book...just seems so unnecessarily mean-spirited.

So Watership Down 1978...WTF?

[historyofcroatia]

The lost silver coins of King Colloman

The year is 1878, and the head of the Benkovac political district, Stefan Barbieri, is approached by a peasant, Pero Pavlović, from nearby Donji Lepur in Ravni Kotar near Zadar. He gives him a silver coin and says:"I found another 2000 coins in the ground

The year is 1878, and the head of the Benkovac political district, Stefan Barbieri, is approached by a peasant, Pero Pavlović, from nearby Donji Lepur in Ravni Kotar near Zadar. He gives him a silver coin and says: “I found another 2,000 coins in the ground…” Barbieri looked at the coin, which looked a bit strange, authentic, and a cross was visible on it. Donji Lepur This is how the story of…

[superjaysons]

Oti Mabuse's handsome hubby 'signs up to Strictly' after Kelvin Fletcher rumours

Oti Mabuse’s handsome hubby ‘signs up to Strictly’ after Kelvin Fletcher rumours

[ad_1]

Oti Mabuse’s handsome husband is reported to be joining the team of Strictly Come Dancing professionals – after previously giving a sinister warning to his wife’s celebrity partners.

Asked about the dreaded curse associated with the BBC One dance show, Marius Lepure responded: “If you sleep with my wife, I’m gonna kill you” in an interview last year.

Strictly insiders say that the…

[bluemagic-girl]

🔥Kelvin Fletcher's wife Eliza Marsland insists there's 'no drama' after he was pictured on night out with Oti Mabuse🔥

Kelvin Fletcher’s wife Eliza Marsland has insisted there is “no drama here” after her husband was pictured enjoying a late night out with his Strictly Come Dancing partner Oti Mabuse.

Strictly Come Dancing winners Fletcher and Mabuse were pictured in The Sun enjoying a late night out together in London last Friday, sharing a nightcap in the Soho Sanctum hotel at 3:30am.

Marsland was later pictured not wearing her wedding ring, and reportedly unfollowed Fletcher on Instagram after the pictures emerged.

“That ring is heavy. It only comes out on special occasions. Oh, and it was fake tan day. #Nodramahere.”

(@eliza_marsland)

Fletcher, an ex-Emmerdale star, and Eliza married in 2015, and have two children; Marnie, three, and Milo, one.

Fletcher has spent a number of months travelling with the Strictly Come Dancing tour following his success on the show.

He is not partnered with Mabuse on the tour as she is currently a judge on The Greatest Dancer.

The duo won Strictly Come Dancing last December after Fletcher joined the show just days before it began, replacing injured TV personality Jamie Laing.

Strictly Come Dancing 2019

He thanked Mabuse for “the most amazing experience of my life,” saying: “I think this show represents everything that is amazing with this country, I think the people personify what is great and it’s just been an absolute privilege.”

A tearful Mabuse praised Fletcher, saying: “I’ve been on this show for five years and I have never ever met any celeb who gives his heart, his soul… for me that is the best gift and the best ending to my year.”

Mabuse married Romanian dancer Marius Lepure in 2016.

from WordPress https://moosegazette.net/%f0%9f%94%a5kelvin-fletchers-wife-eliza-marsland-insists-theres-no-drama-after-he-was-pictured-on-night-out-with-oti-mabuse%f0%9f%94%a5/14423/

[lepurcinus]

YES YES, FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT.

I really appreciate its animation, its visual aesthetic, and that it's certainly not one of those adaptations that changes almost everything.

But the feeling? Not at all, reading the book for the first time filled me with all kinds of emotions, my imagination flew and all these little rabbits made a place in my heart.

In the movie everything just happens. The characters feel almost so empty and flat. Only Fiver and Bigwig seem to have personality.

(You wouldn't even know that Dandelion is a narrator if it wasn't for the others mentioning that he is, but you never see him narrating anything).

And everything else is just so, so grim. Those moments of quiet and banter are practically non-existent. The most memorable scenes are just the ones that are grim and shocking.

I don't blame people who think wsd is violent and sad for the movie, if really the only memorable scenes are those :/.

i don’t like the watership down movie!

i am going to start this post by saying that the movie is, objectively speaking, an absolute masterpiece. i literally cannot find fault with it—as a movie.

but as an adaptation? i can’t stand the thing.

this is the part where i out myself i as a massive book purist. i read the book first, and when i think of watership down, i think of the book! and from that very first epigraph—the one from agamemnon—i was hooked. i’d bring the book to the cafeteria with me and get so absorbed i literally forgot to eat lunch. i fell completely in love with richard adams’s writing and vision.

martin rosen’s vision, on the other hand? not so much…

watership down, as a book, has so much heart and soul to it. it’s violent, yes, and even horrific at times—but there’s stories! and jokes! and a writing style that feels like someone you love is reading it to you! there’s so much light and love in it that really shines through every page! and martin rosen thought it would be a good idea to rip out that heart and turn watership down into a fucking bunny war movie—one that still doesn’t manage to be even half as suspenseful or horrifying as the book!

i am well aware that this opinion puts me at odds with… pretty much everyone else in the fandom! so this is the bit where i throw a smoke bomb and GTFO.

[lepurcinus]

Being completely frank and based on my personal experiences.

I'm sure that 90% of the people who complain about the Watership Down miniseries designs for "Uhhh theY L00k lIke hAreS" are also the same type of people who really don't know how to make a basic distinction between the two animals beyond the typical "long ears and small bodies" and would call any moderately thin wild rabbit a "hare" while naming the hares on the right as rabbits.

(and that's not how it works, maybe it would help you to identify your pet rabbit compared to your average brown hare. But then you find out things like there are over 30 species of each, with their own characteristics and also that things like climatic differences in location also have an effect on the bodies of the animals so you know it's something a bit more complex).

The real problem here that makes the rabbits look so strange is the position of the limbs, as you can't see the fur covering them then they become more noticeable and the very unnatural poses of the rabbits only make it worse.

Also, thanks to @/Raggedybearcat on twitter talking about the rabbit problems of this adaptation in a more professional way. If you have time you can check out her thread, she gives a lot of good improtant key points on understanding the anatomy of these animals.

Another thing is that this has been by far the less worst example of official Watership Down material confusing hares with rabbits in a much more obvious way lmao.

[lepurcinus]

I'm going to find it highly insulting that in most (if not all) Watership Down adaptations they leave out the rabbit folklore part so much. They always adapt one or two stories and the others never appear or are told in a super abbreviated almost lost form.

I don't know about you, but I think that was one of the things that got me hooked on WD the most when I first read it. To me it was so amazing and clever the idea of creating an animal version of our myths based on their perception of the world, it was like a way to get me into a more into a mindset so different from my own.

Not only that, they detract from THEIR IMPORTANCE. The stories are meant to function as a "middle ground" a moment of relaxation and fun where the angst of the moment is set aside, not only for the author but for the rabbits themselves, as a connection. But beyond being a simple relaxation, the stories HAVE A WEIGHT on our characters. The story of El-ahrairah's blessing and the story of the black rabbit gave our protagonists the strength and will to go on and be like El-ahrairah, the story of the lettuce reminded us of the importance of cunning and trickery as part of the rabbit's life, the story of the trial gave weight to the role of Kehaar and the mouse, the story of Rowsby Woof gave Fiver the vision of the dog, even the half-told story of the fox in the water was important to make the female rabbits feel good during the siege of Efrafa.

Seriously, one of the things I loved most about WD was that whole role of culture and myth (something I personally have always been fascinated by) seen even in non-human animals. It's so sad how little weight people give them, they really deserve to someday be represented in all their glory.

In the movie we only had the animation of the prologue (simply beautiful that yes, of my favorite animated sequences of all) and a half-worked idea of the King's Lettuce ("cut the tone" my eggs, Rosen).

The '99 series was the only one that more or less gave them more weight even adding one or two new ones. It's appreciated, but I still felt them very empty and the black rabbit one was never realized (despite there being plans for a chapter dedicated to that, heck).

Of course the miniseries doesn't differ that much from the movie, just the prologue part. But at least it was kind of nice to have at least parts of other stories told occasionally (I would have loved to hear that version of the black rabbit story in full).

(I would even go so far as to say that other WD inspired xf stories have failed to reach this "height" either. Either because those stories are always left very briefly aside or the story is so fanciful that they just don't matter/impact in the same way).

[lepurcinus]

Hey so. I was revisiting the "There's a dog loose in the woods" scene from Watership Down and I noticed an extremely important detail that may be seem silly or a bit obvious, but I don't think it's been given the attention it deserves.

It wasn't Fiver who actually gave Hazel the idea. It was EL-AHRAIRAH HIMSELF who did it through him. And I'm not just saying that because literally the chapter is called "A Message from El-ahrairah", Hazel himself says it "El-ahrairah has shown me what to do".

And i didn't take credit away from Fiver, maybe he was the only one who could have brought that message. He is also the one who begins, giving us the clue by quoting Rowsby Woof. It's like a roundabout way of El-ahrairah/Fiver saying "Hazel, through this story of my adventures I'll tell you something".

One thing the adaptations put in is that it was Fiver who starts yelling that "there's a dog loose in the woods" which makes Hazel think about it. However, what really happened is that Hazel, worried about his brother, touches him with his paw and that is when Fiver SHARES HIS VISION TO HAZEL. He sees it too, an offhand form of vibrating branches, the sensation of fear and a powerful figure emerging along with a group rabbits watching and listening to their barking along with the song of a jay. And that's when a voice (we are not told who it belongs to) tells Hazel not to wait any longer, to go now, that there is a dog loose in the woods. (I like to imagine that it is the jay that spoke with the voice of El-ahrairah but that is up to each one). And that's when the idea emerges.

Sometimes I really regret the lack of art direction for these little scenes.

[lepurcinus]

By the way, I finished this document yesterday summarizing most of my story concepts in case any of you are interested in reading about my rants with semi-realistic animals that talk (or sometimes don't). Since we don't send files and I don't want to have to put it somewhere else to send it in parts I put it in images. As they are summaries it's just a short idea about what it's mainly about, so there are no details about worldbuilding or specific characters. Also there might be a couple of ideas that I didn't put here because I don't remember them, I must have them somewhere else I hope.

[lepurcinus]

Bros, I'm sick to death of the inordinate hatred that people are taking to animals like pandas, koalas and the like (mostly the former) to the level that they legitimately look for any reason (however cherrypicking and incomplete) to wish for their extinction. And all because of memes and "information" channels that have fed a lot of myths and stupidity.

I've had to read things like it's the pandas' fault for not adapting in time and other animals have made it. Because of course, it is perfectly possible to adapt in less than a hundred years to the loss of the ecosystem with which you evolved for millennia and the mass murder of your species. (ALSO, they will never give you an example of those cases where some species did manage to "adapt in time" because they literally do not exist).

I even received the most imbecilic comment of all saying that in a million years they are going to be extinct anyway and that's why it is not worth protecting them...(Wtf)

These people are seriously beyond me, then they contradict themselves or really don't know how to argue as you may have seen, but then they treat you like an idiot for using common sense.

I'm tired people, I am.

[lepurcinus]

If there is anything other than the "good herbivore" "bad carnivore" trope, it is when they add a carnivore who is a friend of the protagonists, he or she must be a pariah to the rest of his or her species who treat him or her as a "traitor". Oh, and let's not mention that this one is good because it decided to become a "vegetarian", because apparently consuming protein and not wanting to die of starvation is a hate crime that makes you evil.

[lepurcinus]

More about ideas for society or "culture" in xenofiction.

Cultural differences between domestic, feral and wild.

Ok, it's very common and more so in stories involving the escaped pet who meets the wild ones that the classic comments of "Useless pet dependent on humans knows nothing about life" are made many times related to pet stereotypes (and also demonizing captivity or the relationship of owners and pets, mostly when they are cats) or that when it meets a wild animal then they explains the law of mother nature or the philosophy of the jungle or something like that. But I feel that there is still a lot of unexplored ground in this concept.

Let's say if I do a story about pet dogs, stray/feral dogs and maybe some wolves. You have that pet dogs probably don't for the most part have a very complex society or religion amongst themselves due to the greater habit of interacting with their owners and the occasional neighbor dog.

Maybe dogs from shelters, kennels, police dogs or similar may share among themselves their own philosophies or further expand their pantheon of gods, maybe each breed may have among themselves their idea of why they exist if they have snub noses, long hair, slimmer bodies, etc.

But then for the most part they share the basic concept of the story of the great dog god of the stars who made all the animals and brought man to the dog to protect him from loneliness and united them forever.

Then when we talk about stray and feral dogs, then that "belief" can be maintained but with slight deformations or differences (or have your nihilistic atheist dog who lost hope, I don't know). Let's say then that in this world abandoned dogs living on the streets then think that the promise of the star dog god was broken, maybe by himself or the dog as an individual has done something wrong, then that is why these still seek to approach people and seek to "redeem" their failure. But feral dogs, having lived in generations without that contact then now their belief is that that union was betrayed and broken, hence their greater refusal to seek human affection, but still in force that little joke of an opportunity to regain it.

So if there are then wolves in the formula, they may have their star god but it may not be exactly the same as the dogs. And their view of man be more like seeing their arrival, how take everything to their children and created a warped version of them that is against them. There would also be feral dogs more accustomed to "wild" life whose belief is more wolf-like than dog-like.

Other things, enter in the cultural difference already related to the behavioral change derived from domestication. Dogs do not have the familiar pack concept of the wolf completely and their gestures are not the same or communicate the same. If we then handle a story in which the animals have their own language, then dogs do not know the language of the wolf and these in turn have developed their own language with its variants.

With other animals it would work similarly, cats that have learned to tolerate each other more, domestic rabbits that have forgotten the concept of the communal warren or to live with fear and cunning. Etc.

Other things would also result in domestic animals having things borrowed from humans, such as a greater understanding of their gestures, sounds and constructions, some words of their own that are remnants of the sounds of human words.

Perhaps adding that there are "bilingual" domestic animals that, being in contact with other animals, it would be easier for them to understand their gestures and communicate with them.

God gave me the ability to generate spontaneous ideas but the curse of feeling I can't use them well, blame him for that btw.

[lepurcinus]

Another thing I don't like is when they take that "prey animal makes a deal with a predator" concept where they do something along the lines of "I'll let them live if they at least let me take about two a day" or something like that. Because they handle it like it's something inherently evil and almost sectarian, then you have the protagonists saying "oh they're enslaving them" "you should be ashamed of yourself for selling your dignity like that".

Even in stories that try to keep carnivores more in a neutral environment they still look for ways to see them in a negative light most of the time (Yes, even wsd does this).

And I mean, that's pretty much how a damn ecosystem works, there's a reason things like super and sub predators exist, and there's a reason all herbivores aren't extinct.

You have in the case of the rabbit and the Iberian lynx, not only that the latter depends on the former to subsist. In places where lynxes have been reintroduced, they have helped to increase rabbit populations, since the lynx drives away any other competition and allows the growth of rabbits.

And I don't see any rabbits complaining about it. It's natural, it's normal, it SHOULD look that way.

[lepurcinus]

What do you think of the three watership down adaptations?

This is probably very unpopular or strange. But here I go (W VEEERY long text/rant)

The 78 movie: Ehmmmmmm how to say it, I like it but not that much????

The animation style and this one itself I love, very beautiful captures the natural environment very well and the designs of the rabbits are impeccable even though they can be somewhat similar at times. I even appreciate that each warren follows its own details and even each rabbit has a unique part.

On the other hand in terms of story...it is the most faithful adaptation and follows everything almost to the letter, failing due to lack of time and thus having to cut things out. And it shows. I don't feel any kind of depth or charisma for the characters like their written version, they are just there existing (Except Bigwig and maybe Fiver) and the important scenes that should identify them are no longer the same (Ahem Dandelion saying he will tell the story of his journey to the youngsters when we never see him narrate a single story). Also new characters that only exist to die and also don't give me any kind of impact and even ruin the other characters in passing (Violet/Blackavar). And yes I definitely hated with all my being the focus on scary, violent and so on. Look, the book also has its moments and the presence of death is constant, but here I just see rabbits bleeding gallons of blood and dying at every corner and bad rabbits just because, Watership Down isn't about that. The scenes concentrate on horror and not terror as it should be (they are different things). Although read I will give points on the setting for the scenes of Fiver and the black rabbit. Actually that more ethereal part was very good, the way the visions of him in the art were presented was amazing too, very intriguing.

I'm still reeling from the pain of having the lettuce story scene removed.

The 99 series: Passable, a middle ground.

Some additions are a bit weird but it follows the line well, changes like Blackberry's gender don't bother me and I'd say it's even exaggerated the hate they gave it at the time (Because surprise it's not violent like the woooh movie).

In other terms, let's say that certain things didn't fit me. The personalities of the characters while I appreciate that they aren't talking rocks like the movie it bothers me a bit that they feel so generic/stereotypical/one trick. More than anything I have this problem with Bigwig, I don't know if it's my problem but seriously his version here I don't like him I feel very annoying and bloody to an unbearable level. He's naggy but not in a fun and understandable way like in the book. Something like that happens to me with the others.

New characters like Hannah and Kehaar's treatment eh, I don't hate every minute of his presence but yeah, they are not my favorite. The idea of having Kehaar abandon his people in favor of the rabbits is kind of missing the point of his character? Then they kind of backtrack and decide to give him a mate to leave and then replace him with a baby voiced hawk.

Although I found characters like the Yona's, the mole or Bark to be likable and cute.

The third season is a hit or miss. The change of style is not too bad although some designs look ugly (On the other hand Woundwort and Campion look very badass like that). The implementation of magic as something straightforward and affecting the world it seemed ridiculous and unnecessary. They detract from the fact that the Watership Down rabbits won by their cunning and teamwork and that Woundwort fell by his own stubbornness. Here they brought out a mouse with powers taken from a wizard turtle to summon fucking death itself to take everyone down???? Seems like inle needs to be summoned to do his job lol. (And yeah, I didn't like his characterization here, especially that edgy voice with filters ugh).

Other more additions like the new warrens and the El-ahrairah stories I love them but i wish they would have delved into them more. I really wanted that chapter on Inle's story had been done. The concept of Darkhaven and its rabbits, although it seems to be taken from a Fanfic with ocs the truth I found it interesting and I liked several characters a lot (I love you Granite). Also this version includes my favorite characterization of Woundwort and Vervain (and Campion I understand why many like this version) they are not 100% villains and they have their background and seeing their rise and fall is worth it. Although I feel that outside of them and characters like Moss Efrafa contributed almost nothing, there were not all those characters that helped us to understand how life was there and there were only brute and aggressive rabbits without more, it all felt very wasted. And again Blackavar is used as a rag because apart from being half secondary then completely forget about him. Wanting to take advantage of a person

Wanting to take advantage of characters like Silverweed was good, the truth I liked him outside of his oc superpowers.

The overall art style is not bad but looking at the concept art I would have wished it would have stayed that way. I can't help but see them as colorful Wallabies instead of rabbits and other animals that don't even look like the species they are.

I could add more but these are the most important thing to say.

Netflix miniseries: Well, here we go. I'm sure some will already want to flame and crucify me for this, but fearlessly I'm going to say it's my favorite adaptation of the three.

And look I FULLY UNDERSTAND your annoyances (Except for the stupidity of complaining because it's less violent than the movie). I agree that the animation leaves a lot to be desired and that the bunny models could have been better (besides the pawpads and constant digitigrade posing). And yes, I can see why several changes in moments and characters don't generate the same impact as in the novel. I read the thousand and one reviews everywhere that talk about that and I've noticed it myself.

However, even with all that I dare to say that it is my favorite and I'll tell you why.

I really like to enjoy it as a different version of the story, it's a different vision and unlike their other adaptations here I can't force myself to understand it as a super watered down and flat version of the novel nor as an episodic series with new additions. It's a new form of Watership Down. Get my point?

Here I really see characters changing and with personality. While it's true that some are still driven by being somewhat repetitive like Hawkbit and Dandelion, but here I didn't feel them overly heavy-handed like in the TV series. They are fun to watch, they are charismatic.

I've seen several complaints about how Bigwig here is too aggressive and pedantic but personally I didn't feel him in that way?? I mean yes, he definitely lacks that softer, more sympathetic side but I think his character comes across well. And yes, I can see why one would be upset with him being treated more like a stupid strongman here instead of the strong but knowledgeable and analytical bunny.

Other characters. I see the annoyance with the more insecure Hazel and a bit Simp, on the other hand I like that he has a couple of flaws that evolve as he progresses. I certainly don't think it was done in the best way and I feel him still very emotional and driven to danger by his own lack of judgement, however the fact that Fiver is the one who complements him with being the one who backs him up and makes him understand is something I appreciate.

Fiver is actually my favorite characterization and I don't know if I would say the boldness of it made me love him much more here than even his literary version. He's neither a hypernervous anorexic bunny driven by trauma nor a calm possessed child. He is a balance, he is sympathetic, level-headed, intelligent, though he can be intimidated he is also not afraid to speak his mind and is true to his ideals and takes his views seriously but at the same time fearful because of how unfamiliar and perplexing they are, sometimes even leading to blame himself for not wanting to understand them if it allows him to help others. To me that's a good way to look at Fiver.

Added as doe Strawberry and Clover, let's see. Again the gender change I could care less about, Strawberry active cheerful and helpful I thought was great, she is very cute and cuddly. And her complement with Bigwig doesn't seem bad to me (some say it didn't make sense because they didn't interact but actually they did, she even defended him when they were arguing and come on even in the book the rabbits who are a couple at least even spoke to each other??).

Clover on the other hand, again the idea of her being a more active character I thought was great. Although the fact that they try to focus on her being a caged rabbit and her unfamiliarity with the wild is handled, I see the flaws in this as well. She gets used relatively quickly and even though it was precisely because of her naivety that she got into trouble it doesn't feel as much. About his romance with Hazel, look, I see it cute but I understand why some things get messed up. The fact that it has to be her instead of Fiver who ventures out to find Hazel after being hurt, because true love, was definitely an egregious change. They could have had Fiver go and Clover impatiently try to follow him only to get lost on the way and get captured instead.

Kehaar though definitely very grumpy and rude compared to his version who though defiant and brave is also helpful was a bit ehh. I still find him charismatic in his own way and his "rivalry" relationship with Bigwig I feel worked well considering.

What their personalities are like here.

Efrafa and does. Uffff how to say it, the change from being a super populated den due to its oppressive environment as a derivative of the desire to hide it as much as possible from man is lost. Here it is an oppressive and evil place because yes, Woundwort has his background but he is entirely corrupted and what he does he does out of sheer power and desire. It's not such a bad take but it still loses its depth, I would have liked to see that concept where Woundwort's brother was still alive and together they created it while he looks with sorrow at his brother's corruption, it would have been great.

Looking at it this way then, well it definitely captures that terrifying and oppressive aura very well, these rabbits do look powerful, terrifying and dominating. Vervain and especially Orchis looked great to me, most of all the latter. I have a thing for these charismatic and intelligent villains who know how to use words well instead of force to get what they want. Sainfoin and Campion were also good, in a way that they tried to go with a similar path to the TV series with the latter I saw it great, more in this context. Also we see something more about Efrafa's life and although the idea of Bigwig being presented as a narrator instead of a member of Owsla was somewhat rare, the more I appreciated his interactions with the other characters watching him with intrigue, training him and interacting with him as comrades in storytelling.

About Hyzen and the does. Again in this context they work. They are in a really horrible place with thousands of horrible eyes on them. Even with that Hyzen and the others are still girls trying to overcome whatever happens to them, she still wants the best for her teammates even if it leads her to be much more distrustful and bring her to the brink of breakdown. I wish her ability to be like Fiver had also been added but I still like her.

Also I appreciate finally having Thethuthinnang and Nettle's involvement as a Nelthilta equivalent, maybe I would have wanted Vilthuril to also be part of the group to equally give her a role and then her bonding with Fiver. How Thet wants to be that force of encouragement for everyone with his songs is a beautiful thing to me. And Nettle's betrayal as an attempt to want to do his best without knowing the damage it meant was very painful.

And yes, Holly's involvement and her relationship with Hyzen seemed appropriate to me. Despite this Holly lacking a lot of the veteran side and knew his original counterpart, I saw him as nice collaborative and challenging and how in a way his mistake in not listening to Fiver made him pay and reflect on being better to then tell Campion great!!!. Others say it's kind of weird but consider that all along Hyzen and Holly interacted and knew each other in Efrafa as well as being a link for her to trust Bigwig. Although their interaction was little it's actually a possible scenario to see. Then he sacrifices himself and mourns his death, gosh, I prefer that over Blackavar's unnecessary and weightless death in the movie. This one at least does have weight and reason.

Plus they finally make Blackavar justified, I love him so much here as a wise old veteran but hurting, capable of being tough. He really participates in the story! And I loved his role along with his line "your plan doesn't make sense but if you pull it off and we remember it I want to be able to say I was part of it" (It wasn't like that as is but you know what it is.).

And lastly, I really missed the lack of stories. Despite being told secondarily, I would have liked to hear this version of Inle's story. And speaking of which, love this version of her, so serene, good and kind but at the same time mysterious and creepy. My favorite without a doubt.

Anyway, here's all my chatter, there would be more but I've already overdone it. Answer me what you want about this and argue, even if there are new points that I'm happy to hear my general opinion will remain the same :P

[lepurcinus]

That post yesterday on the issue of the life cycle in works of animal fiction made me realize even more how difficult it is to write amoral animals when they can talk or are slightly sapient.

It's something I say the same about issues of welfare, rescue, humanization, etc. Humans can't help but identify with animals, let alone convey some of our thoughts to them.

By making characters that speak and therefore express their emotions more easily, it is easier to make that identification. That is why it is equally important to know how to convey the message that they are not and do not think like humans.

When the animal does not speak or is not so over-anthropomorphized, it is easier to convey this idea. "For it is nothing more than a survival mechanism", "for it the world is nothing more than a fusion of colors, smells and sounds" (of course, it also depends on the way in which the author is going to describe the being). But how do you do this if they speak? If you are going to write about talking cats, will you make the male say: "I'm going to kill your children so you can have mine, don't hate me for it, I can talk but I don't think"?

Of course not, it's something to be handled delicately.

It makes me wonder if I will be able to convey these things well in my stories. Logically there will be people who want to analyze it far beyond my ideas, and I wouldn't mind. But it will be annoying if they then say that my work is a critique of capitalism, that they can't mourn someone's death because that's life, or that cannibalism in starvation conditions is okay.

Nor have the typical edgy "wow in this story of cute little animals these bleed and die WOW HOW DARK AND CRUEL NATURE IS" edgy.

*sigh*