Talk:Watership Down (film)

Citation for "piss off"
I have a website for the citation of the line "The film is also possibly the only U-rated film to include the phrase "piss off"[citation needed]" but i'm not sure how to add it. http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/w/watership-down-script-transcript-rabbits.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.143.48.66 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no argument about whether or not the film contains the phrase: we know it does. What's needed is a citation specifically for its being the only U-rated film that does; unfortunately, your transcript doesn't help us there. Loganberry (Talk) 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could track what films use the line at Wiktionary and a failure to find a U film to quote is proof? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Remake?
I have removed this recently-added section, as it doesn't have any references and I couldn't find anything on a quick Google search to indicate this is going ahead. The image is also unsourced. In case some proper refs can be added, I have pasted the edit below. Bob talk 23:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

''A screenplay for a 3D CGI remake of the film with an all-star cast is rumored to be in the works and will be completed by the end of 2010. If the screenplay is put into production (with an estimated release date sometime between 2012-2013), possible rumored cast members include Hugh Jackman, Clive Owen, Alan Rickman and Ray Winstone. Australian visual effects company Animal Logic have been rumoured to have agreed to accept the production of the developing screenplay: a CGI test-image was released on July 22nd 2010.''

Blu Ray release
According to http://www.blurayspecs.co.uk/blu-ray-film/4766-watership-down-uk a Blu Ray has been released on November 22, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.220.218 (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

There's neither a bluray nor a 2 DVD version available or even anounced at amazon.com or amazon.co.uk. The according paragraphs should be removed.

Instant success
OK, it's saying that the film was an instant success and was the 6th best grossing film of 1979, but it was released in October 1978. If it was an instant success, surely it would be one of the top films of 1978? Films are shown at cinemas generally for a few weeks. I'm sure it picked up some more speed when the single (Bright Eyes) became a big hit during 1979, but does that qualify as an immediate success, I would suggest it was a slow burner surely. Anybody know specifics?--Tuzapicabit (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I know this is two years old, but here is my personal recollections for reference purposes: The marketing of films was rather different in the seventies to today. We cannot judge using today's standards. In recent years films have been distributed to many thousands of cinemas all over the country as soon as its is released. These are probably nearly all digital and so that's not a problem. Films are here today, gone tomorrow in the cinemas - not so in previous decades.


 * In 1978 films were distributed as prints, and even for a big release, relatively few were ever made due to the high cost. What happened then, in the UK at least, was that films got a staged release, first the West End, i.e. central London for a few weeks, then London wide for a few weeks, then the prints "did the rounds" of cinemas up and down the country for several months, may be returning "by popular demand" months after it had been first shown. So all but the least popular films had a life of several months. Watership Down was no exception. The highest grossing film in the UK in 1978 was apparently Star Wars, which of course was released in 1977. All films had a much longer time on general theatrical release when there was no home video (well it was just starting - Watership Down wasn't released on video until 1982) So Watership's biggest gross occurring in 1979 was by no means unusual or odd.


 * According to Martin Rosen in his director's commentary to the region 4 Blue Sky Video DVD and from other contemporary sources, Watership Down had not been expected to have the normal distribution. Indeed prior to release it had been expected to have a London only release as the distributors, CIC, were unsure of the market for the film. It was suspected as being of niche interest only. The early very limited release immediately showed there was a much larger market than expected and so extra prints were reportedly hurriedly prepared and a full country-wide release arranged. This is the major justification of the term "immediate success".


 * I do not have any figures for the business it did in 1978. There were plenty of big films throughout that year. I first saw it in a packed house at the Plaza 4, Lower Regent Street in November 1978, and again with my parents at the Southampton Odeon early in 1979, having had to queue round the block, which was fairly common at that time for popular films. Given that cinema was still an undivided large 30's "picture palace" seating around 3000, that's pretty decent business by any standards.


 * Watership Down played at the west end cinema I had first seen it in for over a year continuously. I repeat: over a year. Yes, the release of Bright Eyes in the spring of 1979 played a major part in extending the film's run throughout 1979: it played the provincial circuit for at least the first six months of 1979. Six months... today, almost no film runs for more than six weeks.


 * So, I think the term "immediate success" is justified by the business I suspect it did in 1978 alone. It certainly wasn't a "slow burner": it started out (unexpectedly) popular and stayed that way, granted with the help of "Bright Eyes" as a single, for around 9 months or more, with most of that time being the first half of 1979, making it the Downsman (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In second this response, movie distribution obeyed very different dynamics back then. If a movie was a break-out success state-side, it could mean you had to wait longer for a print to reach your local cinema! And there was no internet, cable, and it took years before a movie was aired on terrestrial TV (that bit probably has not changed much). So a "big movie" was a gathering storm, which could build up over weeks and months...88.111.239.43 (talk) 17:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Care bears template?
Why is that there at the bottom? Unless someone can explain the relevance I'm assuming this can be removed. Thanks. Nora nettlerash (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Haha, good spot. Absolutely no idea why that's here - removed. Bob talk 06:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Girl bunny

 * "I've never been in the woods Hazel, it looks dangerous."

Woman's voice. Can't figure out if this is Clover voiced by Mary or Hazenthlay voiced by Hannah. Are there any scripts which attribute names to lines? ScratchMarshall (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Traumatic
Watching this movie as a child was one of the most traumatic things in my life. I seriously want to see a study of the mental health differences of people based on the age they first saw it. I've talked to a bunch of people who feel similarly. I feel like this deserves mention in the article. I have not attempted to dig up citations yet. —Darxus (talk) 01:38, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as I know there's no studies on how the film has affected viewers, only anecdotal memories (such as your own). I have added a new sub-section under 'Release and Reception' on the film's reputation as a distressing kids film which others are welcome to add to with further sources.Cinefeline (talk) 17:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Reviews from 1978
The 'Release and Reception' section only refers to Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, which contain mostly recent reviews, and one retrospective from 2018. There are no reviews cited from 1978. The sources currently cited in this section indicate that the film's reputation is now largely positive, but I've found that reviews from 1978 present a far more mixed picture. I have a lot of reviews from 1978, in old magazines and newspaper databases, which I would like to add to this section and give a more accurate picture of the film's reception when it was first released. Cinefeline (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic metrics really shouldn't be included for films this old (see WP:AGG) because they don't paint an accurate picture of the reception. If you want to add more contemporary reviews then feel free to do so. Please make sure you provide citations. Betty Logan (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've significantly expanded on the reception of the film. This is my first try at editing Wikipedia so feedback is more than welcome. Cinefeline (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's mostly fine, and well written. I have removed some unsubstantiated original research because claims about the overall reception need to be sourced per MOS:FILM. I have also removed the aggregator data in line with WP:AGG, because it is not clear how representative it is of the current reception. Aggregators often include reviews from the time of the original release, so it's not clear at all if critical opinion has shifted down the years. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)