Dead Richard Adams

[Grim Reaper 186]

Watership Down author now well into his 90s...

[JR976evil 909]

Won't be many 'Bright Eyes' when he goes. Sorry...

[Handrejka 1,904]

I've never read the book, but Watership Down is still one of only two films to ever make me cry, so for that I hate him. The other film was The Pianist and I hate Polanski too but for different reasons.

[Guest Captaincloser]

"We all have to meet our match sometime or other."

 

Watership Down quotation

[Guest American Sports Fan]

Watership Down is of my top five favorite books, ever. My copy is more ragged than Blackavar's ears from all the times I've re-read it. I'd be sorry to see Adams go, but if the Black Rabbit decides it's your time, "there is no bargain. What is, is what must be."

[Toast 16,155]

Watership Down ends with one of the best death scenes ever <reaches for hanky>

 

Hazel's Death

[Bibliogryphon 9,592]

I overheard a hilarious exchange in a public library between a couple with young children in the DVD section. The mother suggested getting out this lovely animated film about bunny rabbits for their offspring to watch, the reaction from her husband was an emphatic no as he had obviously been traumatised by this movie as boy and he reacted as though she had suggested they rent a snuff movie.

[Phantom 2,536]

Happy 93rd birthday!

[wildstorm 297]

He did an AMA (that's 'Ask Me Anything' for you non-nerd types) on Reddit in late September.

 

Seems very sprightly, as well as mentally strong. Should be scratched from the list for 2014.

[The Mad Hatter 1,092]

Hmm why had this been silent so long?

[RadGuy 1,614]

Hmm why had this been silent so long?

Ding-ding-ding! Congrats, Jake Lamotta, you're the last person from the 2015 Deathlist who hasn't had a post on his thread all year.

[Sir Creep 7,070]

 

Hmm why had this been silent so long?

Ding-ding-ding! Congrats, Jake Lamotta, you're the last person from the 2015 Deathlist who hasn't had a post on his thread all year.

Not so sure I consider that inquiry a post.

SC

[msc 18,483]

Its probably quiet because he's shown no signs of ill health! (That we know of)

 

Recent Adams updates include him letting the BBC do a four part adaptation of Watership Down, and he gave two print press interviews around Christmas. He still writes, his memory is apparently still sharp, and while he may snuff it tomorrow due to age, there's little talk on here because he's pottering on doing the same stuff he has for the last few decades!

 

 

Here he is last November, incidentally.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTc2dTMADY4

[gcreptile 10,979]

A BBC journalist visited his house, read Watership Down and wore a rabbit fur hat. However no word on his condition:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445479/An-unfortunate-choice-headgear-Singer-Cerys-Matthews-blasted-presenting-One-item-Watership-wearing-RABBIT-fur-hat.html

[msc 18,483]

A BBC journalist visited his house, read Watership Down and wore a rabbit fur hat. However no word on his condition:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3445479/An-unfortunate-choice-headgear-Singer-Cerys-Matthews-blasted-presenting-One-item-Watership-wearing-RABBIT-fur-hat.html

 

 

He seems to have been a lot quieter in the last year, which tells its own story, given he was quite active at meet and greets and interviews and the like well into this decade.

[Sean 6,337]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense.

[The Mad Hatter 1,092]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense.

ffs anyone afraid of water ship down is a pussy when I was in junior infants my teacher used to always put on that movie and no one had any problems with it.

[Toast 16,155]

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense.

ffs anyone afraid of water ship down is a pussy when I was in junior infants my teacher used to always put on that movie and no one had any problems with it.

 

 

The problem was that nobody expected a film in that style of animation to be so explicitly violent.

[msc 18,483]

They showed Watership Down for Easter? That's wonderful!

[Bibliogryphon 9,592]

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense

 

 

How many of those complaints would be from parents who had no idea what their kids were watching until it had upset them?

 

Surely if it was on Channel 5 no-one would have seen it anyway.

[Toast 16,155]

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense

 

 

How many of those complaints would be from parents who had no idea what their kids were watching until it had upset them?

 

Surely if it was on Channel 5 no-one would have seen it anyway.

 

 

I can't remember how old I was when the film came out, but old enough to have left home. I saw it in the cinema and was taken aback by the explicit violence. If it had been a darker style of animation, like the LOTR one, it wouldn't have been so shocking.

I don't have any children, but if I had I wouldn't have let them watch that film, not as children anyway.

So it's quite possible that these parents hadn't seen it themselves, if their own parents knew it was unsuitable.

Hope that makes sense.

[Bibliogryphon 9,592]

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense

 

 

How many of those complaints would be from parents who had no idea what their kids were watching until it had upset them?

 

Surely if it was on Channel 5 no-one would have seen it anyway.

 

 

I can't remember how old I was when the film came out, but old enough to have left home. I saw it in the cinema and was taken aback by the explicit violence. If it had been a darker style of animation, like the LOTR one, it wouldn't have been so shocking.

I don't have any children, but if I had I wouldn't have let them watch that film, not as children anyway.

So it's quite possible that these parents hadn't seen it themselves, if their own parents knew it was unsuitable.

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

I may have mentioned this before but I was once witness to a fantastic argument between a couple in a library about whether to borrow this film for their very small son. The U certificate is misleading.

[Deathray 2,941]

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense

 

 

How many of those complaints would be from parents who had no idea what their kids were watching until it had upset them?

 

Surely if it was on Channel 5 no-one would have seen it anyway.

 

 

I can't remember how old I was when the film came out, but old enough to have left home. I saw it in the cinema and was taken aback by the explicit violence. If it had been a darker style of animation, like the LOTR one, it wouldn't have been so shocking.

I don't have any children, but if I had I wouldn't have let them watch that film, not as children anyway.

So it's quite possible that these parents hadn't seen it themselves, if their own parents knew it was unsuitable.

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

I may have mentioned this before but I was once witness to a fantastic argument between a couple in a library about whether to borrow this film for their very small son. The U certificate is misleading.

 

 

Who won? Please tell me Timmy got to see the wee bunny rabbits in the fields - being shot.

[Sean 6,337]

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense

 

 

How many of those complaints would be from parents who had no idea what their kids were watching until it had upset them?

 

Surely if it was on Channel 5 no-one would have seen it anyway.

 

 

I can't remember how old I was when the film came out, but old enough to have left home. I saw it in the cinema and was taken aback by the explicit violence. If it had been a darker style of animation, like the LOTR one, it wouldn't have been so shocking.

I don't have any children, but if I had I wouldn't have let them watch that film, not as children anyway.

So it's quite possible that these parents hadn't seen it themselves, if their own parents knew it was unsuitable.

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

I may have mentioned this before but I was once witness to a fantastic argument between a couple in a library about whether to borrow this film for their very small son. The U certificate is misleading.

 

I agree it should be a PG due to the occasional scenes of violence which may be unsuitable for young children depending on how sensitive or squeamish they are.It depends on the child though.My friend showed his 5 year old brother the scene in Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman rips out Darryl Hannah`s eye and steps on it and he found it utterly hilarious ,whereas when I was the same age I cried when Bambi`s Mum got shot.

[Toast 16,155]

 

 

 

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/channel-5-blasted-traumatising-viewers-7638429:Watership down apparently too violent for children.It is violent yes but there is a context to it and surely all parents remember the film from when they were young so could make that call!

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/watership-down-author-richard-adams-plans-to-release-his-first-picture-book-for-five-year-olds-a6941761.html:From a few days ago.He is releasing some unpublished work and the only health problem mention is him being deaf in one ear.Looks fairly well in pictures also.Says he based a lot of the death scenes from his wartime exprience.Kind of makes sense

 

 

How many of those complaints would be from parents who had no idea what their kids were watching until it had upset them?

 

Surely if it was on Channel 5 no-one would have seen it anyway.

 

 

I can't remember how old I was when the film came out, but old enough to have left home. I saw it in the cinema and was taken aback by the explicit violence. If it had been a darker style of animation, like the LOTR one, it wouldn't have been so shocking.

I don't have any children, but if I had I wouldn't have let them watch that film, not as children anyway.

So it's quite possible that these parents hadn't seen it themselves, if their own parents knew it was unsuitable.

Hope that makes sense.

 

 

I may have mentioned this before but I was once witness to a fantastic argument between a couple in a library about whether to borrow this film for their very small son. The U certificate is misleading.

 

I agree it should be a PG due to the occasional scenes of violence which may be unsuitable for young children depending on how sensitive or squeamish they are.It depends on the child though.My friend showed his 5 year old brother the scene in Kill Bill 2 where Uma Thurman rips out Darryl Hannah`s eye and steps on it and he found it utterly hilarious ,whereas when I was the same age I cried when Bambi`s Mum got shot.

 

 

That's the thing though, we don't see Bambi's mum die, we just hear the shot off-screen.

Now I've nothing against gritty realism, but they chose to make WD in a fluffy Bambiesque style of animation, and the way they presented violence and death was inappropriate for that style. And it should never have got a U certificate, that was and still is shamefully misleading.