Live-Action Peter Rabbit film coming in 2018

Sony Pictures recently announced that there are going to make a Live-Action and modernize adaptation of "The Tale Of Peter Rabbit" by Beatrix Potter. Peter Rabbit will be voiced by James Cordon. The film is set to be released in April 2018.

Modernized

Modernized

Modernized

Hoooo boy, this has the potential to go horribly, terribly wrong...nevertheless though, this was literally just announced, so we'll just have to see where this goes. I really hope they know what they're doing with this. If they play their cards right I could see this being another Paddington. If not, though....

Calling it now, a rapping rabbit from central park that immediately takes a backseat to two live action actors playing out a cheap romantic comedy. Expect at least one coprophagia joke.

Isn't that the script for the next Chipmunk movie?

No, that has three chipmunks, not a rabbit. The rest of it is identical though.

Anyway, I can't help thinking this will come a little bit too close to the Live Action Winnie-the-Pooh.

Curious to seeing the teaser trailer for this film later this Summer

It just came.

Pity it's not an adaptation of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6-YPiqOh_w

Peter Rabbit: Tank Killer.

By Beatrix Potter and Sven Hassel.

When do we get the Goodnight Moon franchise? I'm thinking a trilogy.

Forget the last post regarding a trailer, here's one that actually has a trailer:

Here's a synopsis, too:

Okay, I've known about Peter Rabbit for ages, but I didn't exactly grow up with him. Ergo, I'm actually indifferent to this.

That said, I have become smart enough to know that taking something as timeless as Peter Rabbit and saying you're giving him an "irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude" is basically code for "we're doing a movie that's going to get really dated in 10 years or less. Now can it and give us money."

Henceforth, I weep for you guys.

(Honest question: why do families keep falling for this bunk? Because movies like this somehow manage to earn back their money and then some... So why is it that we know it's bad, but families still pay money for this anyway?)

edited 22nd Sep '17 10:03:04 AM by TargetmasterJoe

Didn't you know that Beatrix Potter would have approved of Peter Rabbit throwing wild parties at Mr. Mac Gregor's house? And probably making poop jokes because no modern family film is complete without one? And maybe a joke about how fast rabbits multiply as well?

(And in answer to your question, they keep paying for this bunk because they don't realize that when you pay money to go see a movie you are indirectly telling the studios, "I want more of this!"... Wait for DVD if you think a film will suck, but you wouldn't mind seeing it.)

edited 22nd Sep '17 10:22:01 AM by Aldo930

Oh god damn it.

Its also because families don't give two fucks about quality of television, movies, or media. "Its for children." is usually the response to complaints about terrible kid's movies. I don't really see the same logic being applied to complaints about unhealthy food or bad education.

The really sad thing about this film by Sony is that the animation for the animals (actually done by Animal Logic, not Sony Imageworks) looks great, and the character designs actually do look accurate to Potter media (the books and animated adaptations).

It's just that the direction and tone the actual movie is going for is interested in a different approach entirely. Because when you think Beatrix Potter and/or Peter Rabbit, you think "irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude".

Y'know on it's own this could hae been a fine movie if they didn't feel the need to attach Peter Rabbit to it.

So uh. I grew up with Beatrix Potter's works, Peter Rabbit especially, and while I hate saying this... I think I felt my childhood die a little.

Unfortunately, my mom and I have a thing for watching terrible kids' movies, so we'll probably watch this at some point. On Netflix or something. I'm in no rush for this one.

Hope that this doesn't turn into another complaint thread, but just to get my frustration out there... What happened to you, Sony Pictures Animation? You clearly have talented animators. Why are you getting railroaded with below lackluster material?

A lot of the really talented guys are gone. Genndy Tartakovsky and Lauren Faust's pet projects are both dead there; they've moved on to other things, and the most talented guy they have there is David Feiss, who's probably busy doing another Open Season sequel (unless he's gone too).

But don't blame the animators. Blame the executives who force them to make this stuff.

edited 23rd Sep '17 8:13:04 PM by Aldo930

... oh my god they ACTUALLY WROTE "irreverent, contemporary comedy with atttitude" without a touch of irony

Delayed reaction, I know, but here's my two-cents:

...

.....

Well...if it's any consolation, it seems that they slipped in some other Beatrix Potter characters besides Peter Rabbit and his direct relatives in this movie. We've got Squirrel Nutkin here, Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle there, even got obscure characters if the pig is Pigling Bland...

Otherwise...hoo boy, as someone else who also grew up reading the books, I'm with Misora when they say that their childhood just died a little. I almost wonder what would happen if someone brought Beatrix Potter into the future, showed her that trailer and asked her what she thought afterwards. I didn't even crack a smile once during the whole thing, and many of the jokes were groan-worthy at best.

Honestly, I can't believe that it's been ten years since the "put classic character in an 'irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude'" trend started and we are still getting movies like this even though they almost always end up reviled almost everyone who sees them. Even putting aside the Money, Dear Boy issue, why do we still get movies like this?

What makes it really sad, if you ask me, is that you can do a "modern re-imagining of a character" movie right without making it raucous and trying painfully hard to be "hip with the kids". Paddington is a shining example of that. I love that movie to bits and part of that is because it mostly stays true to the spirit of the books without having Paddington Bear do things like running around wearing nothing but a tie around his head screaming "Going commando!" in an attempt to little kids in the audience laugh. That movie wound up being a critical and financial smash hit, so why is it that nobody else seems to have learned from that?

edited 6th Oct '17 9:05:12 PM by kablammin45

Well... at least there is Miss Potter. Pretty underrated movie if I do say. Maybe Sony could have made something great if they took notes from that movie.

The deal breaker for me in this is James Corden. He's alright in the moneysupermarket adverts we get over here, because he's not talking for longer than a minute. Any more than that and I just switch channels.

So, no. I'm not going to see this film.

Really? Everything else you're on board with ?

I like movies about rabbits. I'm British, or at least Scottish - I'm hard-wired to. I'm of the generation that grew up with Watership Down and Tales from Farthing Wood.

But James Corden? Nope.

Like I said above, and I wasn't joking, it's a pity the adaptation wasn't of Peter Rabbit: Tank Killer, but even if it was, and it had Corden, I'd not go and see the film.

New trailer dropped the other day:

Not quite as cringeworthy at the first one, but still all around not that great. To me, the premise really is just starting to look more and more like "Furry Vengeance but the animals can talk and are Peter Rabbit and other Beatrix Potter characters".