Talk:Watership Down (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
WikiProject Animation / Films (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Animated films work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Animals in media (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animals in media, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of animals' presence in literature, movies, television, and theatre on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Trivia section and plot section[edit]

Firstly, the trivia section. I was neither the person who added the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag, nor the person who reverted its addition, but I think it's worth discussing. Personally I tend towards the view that in an encylopedia, we don't need to add (and indeed should actively avoid adding) every little piece of information that refers to the article's subject, just those which are encyclopedic. Of course there's always argument as to what is sensible to include, so let's have some input.

It strikes me that several of the "Trivia" points that currently exist in the article could quite easily be incorporated into the main text, whereas others are really a bit tangential. The Vicar of Dibley reference should certainly be dropped, if only because it in no way refers specifically to the film.

Secondly, the plot section. It seems to me that it's going to far to have, as is currently the case, almost a complete scene-by-scene guide to the film. Even specialist movie guides don't have that much detail. It would be better to chop it down into a reasonable plot summary, maybe three or four paragraphs at most. Loganberry (Talk) 14:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't agree with you, the plot section is just fine. I mean, come on! It's no longer than the star wars plot section and I don't see anyone complaining about that! - Anonymous reader13:53 May 20, 2007
The Star Wars plot section is far too long as well. There: I've just complained! But seriously: this is an encyclopedia article for general readers; it is not a fansite. I actually have a WD fansite of my own, so I know the difference! And three or four paras is enough for Wikipedia. Loganberry (Talk) 23:10, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Alright, Alright. Go ahead. i guess you're right. It is too long. Sorry. I was just overreacting because I was the one who wrote the whole thing. I guess it was a little too long. Go ahead. Narrow it down, just don't delete it. I don't want to lose ALL my hard work. - Anonymous reader15:27, 12 June 2007
Agreed. There are way too many articles on Wikipedia with plot summaries that are extremely specific, and not in anyway a summary whatsoever. There's a reason why it's called a 'summary', and not a 'transcript'.Vegetable4 14:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I've stuck a {{plot}} cleanup tag on the section for the moment. Basically, the salient point here is that the section should not simply reiterate the plot, which is more or less what is the case at the moment. As I said earlier, three or four paragraphs should be enough: think book blurb, not point-by-point analysis. Loganberry (Talk) 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I corrected some out-of-order plot points, and realized that I did little to mitigate the purpose of this particular discussion. I attempted to streamline the flow of the narrative, but I don't think I'm one to condense it appropriately: I'm too close to the material to do it objectively. Hope someone can; until then, I pledge not to lengthen the section. TashTish 22:16, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Too close? You're not Richard Adams, are you? <g> But seriously, thank you: your input was definitely worth having even so. I've made a few small tweaks to maintain British English (traveling -> travelling, flashlight -> torch etc) but haven't touched the meat of your changes at all; there doesn't seem much point as I think with your edits it's got about as good as it's going to get in this long form. Loganberry (Talk) 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliments, and sensitivity; I have to add that my ego won't be bruised if anyone wants to cut and slash (intelligently please) the section to a more encyclopedic-worthy form. P.S. No, not Richard Adams, just someone with too much affection for the subject matter to be appropriately objective. TashTish 17:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like to have a go at writing a summary of more appropriate length, but then I've been thinking that for some while now and never actually got around to it. The book's page needs similar treatment (in terms of tidying, not plot summary specifically; that may actually be too short!) and that may end up being my priority. Loganberry (Talk) 00:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And I am sorry for causing such a problem from writing the plot summary in the firt place and causing this whole mess. I will try and help with edititng out some of the lengthy stuff in the summary. - Anonymous reader 16:06, 19 september 2007

What EXACTLY is the problem? Is it causing any form of harm? Is it costing anyone money? No, it just happens to be very through, in my opinion, this is a good thing. -BDS —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Wikipedia policy, which is not optional. That says that the threshold for inclusion is "verifiablity, not truth". In other words, it does matter if assertions are made that we can't back up. Copyright law on derivative works also comes into play when a plot summary gets as long as that; and again, respecting copyright law is not optional. Accuracy based on solid, specific sources is vital for our encyclopedia, and "it's not hurting anyone" and "it's not costing anyone money" are not good enough counter-arguments. If this were a "why I love WD" fan page, it would be fine. But as an encyclopedia, it isn't. Loganberry (Talk) 23:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, all! It's been so long, hasn't it? Excuse my brief absece from Wikipedia, I've had to take an extremely hard computer class in college. I'm glad to have passed with a "B". Well, I have finally ventured into the strange void that is a plot section, It has actualy gotten longer in my absence! I have gone ahead and deleted any phrases that were irrelevant or unimportant, but found the same complications TashTish discovered: I'm too close to the work to delete or completely reiterate alot of things. So, I'm really not sure it's time to delete the... yes, that, just yet. Looking at it now, I didn't change much of anything-it's much harder than just deleting a few paras. Please, tell me what you think so that this article may finally be all tidied. I'm probably not the best for the job. We may need someone to just start anew and write a brand new section of a more approprate length. But still, tell me what you think.

Anonymous reader (talk) 01:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

History has repeated itself. In a matter of months, the plot section of this article has almost doubled in length. When it was first written, I can agree it was a bit lengthy, but we were able to get it under control. I don't know who has decided to lengthen this article, and I don't care. You are forgiven. Let's just work on getting it under control. I know we all want Wikipedia to be a nice place. I also know it probably will never be possible to get all two million of its articles perfect, and that's fine. Let's just work on keeping Wikipedia at least decent. I hope I'm not talking to myself here. I hope someone is reading this message I have stayed awake until Eleven o' clock to write. If you are reading this, though, please help. By the way, the {{plot}} tag in the article has a date that reads "April 2008." This plot section was fixed in April 2008, was it not? The tag was deleted, I do believe. Either the person who placed the tag was stuck in a time warp, or the section was both corrected and corrupted in the same month, which I doubt. Like I said in my last message, five months ago, maybe this plot section needs to be completely remade. It just needs help. Sorry for the long message. My point is clear.

Anonymous reader (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Bright Eyes[edit]

I can't find any record of the song Watership Down by the artist Bright Eyes. Is there a source for this, or should I just remove?

I'm not sure what you're talking about: The song is Bright Eyes, performed by Art Garfunkel, and included in the film Watership Down. TashTish 08:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The 'Trivia' section references a song titled Watership Down by Bright Eyes. I would be inclined to delete (or at least request a reference). Bmlb 00:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my ignorance showing; thanks for clarifying. I agree, there may not be such a thing, at least something I can find. TashTish 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation for "piss off"[edit]

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (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)


Is this the same production of Watership Down that was broadcast as a two-night "miniseries" in the United States? -- Pennyforth (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Miniseries? In the United States? I'm not very sure what you are talking about. I am pretty sure this was never broadcasted as a miniseries. My mom took me to see it at a theater when I was seven, so I don't remember ever seeing it on TV as a miniseries. Besides, if there was a miniseries I would know about it. When I saw this movie it changed my life, I'm a huge fan. So I would know if there was a miniseries. Perhaps you are thinking of the TV serries? But it only came on in the UK and Canada and Australia. I'll look into this some more. Not only for you, but for me too-because a WD miniseries sounds interesting.

-Anonymous reader (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Movie poster watership down.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


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)

File:Watership Down CGI test image.JPG
A CGI test-image for the remake of Watership Down, produced by Animal Logic and released on July 22nd 2010.

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[edit]

According to a Blu Ray has been released on November 22, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Instant success[edit]

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)

Care bears template?[edit]

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)