Daisy Ridley Joins New Peter Rabbit Movie

Daisy Ridley Joins New Peter Rabbit Movie

Daisy Ridley Joins Peter Rabbit News

The Star Wars actor is joining an already solid cast.

In 2018, we're going to get a live-action/animation hybrid version of Peter Rabbit, an adaptation of the children's books written by Beatrix Potter. Why? Because money, that's why. Honestly, I didn't even know this was going to be a thing, but after reading up on it, I have mixed feelings.

First, the news. According to Variety, Daisy Ridley, whose most famous role is Rey in the Star Wars franchise, has joined the cast - right now in an unspecified role. She, alongside Elizabeth Debicki, joins a cast that already contains Rose Byrne and James Corden, the latter of whom will be voicing the eponymous bunny. That is a talented cast, and it's likely only going to get bigger.

However, the new movie is going to be a hybrid of live-action and animation about a bunny, which didn't exactly work that well the last time it was done - although there is at least one example of this working. Peter Rabbit will be directed by Will Gluck, who last gave us the abysmal Annie remake. Gluck is also co-writing the screenplay, doing so alongside Rob Leiber, who has no previous credits to his name. All of this is worrisome, at least to me.

Peter Rabbit will be entering production in January 2017, and is scheduled to be released in theaters early in 2018.

Source: Variety

Permalink

Who Framed Roger Rabbit only works because it is very "meta" about it. Space Jam is another example, since it acknowledges that it is cartoons and real people interacting. When you try to act like its not live-action mixed with animation, it just...is bad. Is there literally a single example of live-action and straight up animation mixed together that doesnt acknowledge it that is good?

So... I guess she's going to be playing Mrs. McGregor then?

I'm assuming that animation means CG animation. Because I can't see it working at all otherwise. I'm also worried they'll make this without staying true to the source material.

But whatever. It's not like I'll be going to see this. It's a movie for kids. Kids don't know what is good or not. The only reason I clicked on this story is because Daisey Ridley is somewhat relevant to my interests.

Her acting wasn't even really memorable. In fact, none of the people you have mentioned working on this look to be anyone I'd say of note. She really is the only one that I recognize, and the bigger looking guy that I can't even remember as to what he was in that I would have seen. And now you say the director was the director of the Annie movie, the Sony cash-grab(well, it's Sony so that's almost repeating myself) of a play that I ultimately already find boring? Color me as not giving a shit about this movie. You can always argue the "it's for kids though" argument, but any children's movies that have been smash hits have all been the ones that even adults love, so it's in their best interest to make a good movie as well, not to make a shitty movie.

Saelune:
Who Framed Roger Rabbit only works because it is very "meta" about it. Space Jam is another example, since it acknowledges that it is cartoons and real people interacting. When you try to act like its not live-action mixed with animation, it just...is bad. Is there literally a single example of live-action and straight up animation mixed together that doesnt acknowledge it that is good?

Mary Poppins?

OT; And here comes the next world building trilogy franchise train. All aboard! All aboard?

No.

Fuck no.

Why?

What?

So many questions about this film, and none of them positive. Peter Rabbit was something I grew up with when I was very very smol, I do not need it ruined.

rosac:
No.

Fuck no.

Why?

What?

So many questions about this film, and none of them positive. Peter Rabbit was something I grew up with when I was very very smol, I do not need it ruined.

The original stories with their artwork won't magically be burnt and their proverbial earth salted y'know... New versions of things don't have any impact on the existence of the older.

In fact, if stories aren't retold - they die, so you should surely be pleased they're being given the limelight again.

As for the film itself? Eh, couldn't care less. Not really into animations in general, and I've no attachment to the Potter books/stories (I read/was read them as a kid, and my older sister loved 'em). Ridley was excellent in Force Awakens, but then again pretty much everyone was.

In other words, apropos Daisy Ridley news? Wake me up when the first Episode VIII teaser gets leaked-then-released.

Darth Rosenberg:

rosac:
No.

Fuck no.

Why?

What?

So many questions about this film, and none of them positive. Peter Rabbit was something I grew up with when I was very very smol, I do not need it ruined.

The original stories with their artwork won't magically be burnt and their proverbial earth salted y'know... New versions of things don't have any impact on the existence of the older.

In fact, if stories aren't retold - they die, so you should surely be pleased they're being given the limelight again.

As for the film itself? Eh, couldn't care less. Not really into animations in general, and I've no attachment to the Potter books/stories (I read/was read them as a kid, and my older sister loved 'em). Ridley was excellent in Force Awakens, but then again pretty much everyone was.

In other words, apropos Daisy Ridley news? Wake me up when the first Episode VIII teaser gets leaked-then-released.

I would argue that a bad retelling or extension of any sort of long unused work can often lead to many more years of the work being overlooked, as people who never heard of it before but didn't like the new stuff released for it are rather unlikely to go back and look into the source material, and it convinces higher ups not that bad movies are bad, but that, say, Peter Rabbit is bad. Whereas if the bad retelling was never done in the first place, you won't have new people looking at it, but you'll have someone that actually looks at the source material with respect and they can be willing to give a new retelling a go with executives not being able to point at a recent failure and say "well of course it won't sell, people don't like Peter Rabbit."

To coincide with this, if a bad retelling or sequel or something comes out for something that someone loves, it can often leave a bad taste in the person's mouth even if they haven't seen this new retelling. An example of this can be with the Star Wars prequels. One of my coworkers loves a majority of things Star Wars, but when the prequels came out he grew to hate it, because now everything was being tied into these new movies and that was all everyone would talk about, even if they were just talking shit about it, it still meant talking about the new movies, rather than getting to discuss the good parts of the Star Wars universe that was around before these movies, or even the better parts that started to come out around this time that weren't the movies themselves.

Ultimately, no, while this movie won't get rid of the original stories, it still lumps in with these same stories, and to not do so can often involve a vast amount of mental gymnastics from people just to be able to enjoy the original material without having to associate that experience with this new one. So it really isn't an unreasonable response for someone to be unhappy about news like this, it's a perfectly natural response.

Phew, whatever. I'm waiting for a story where instead of Peter Rabbit flipping and flopping the fly upon his nose, he squashes it in an R-rated adaptation.

She looks very feliney...I cannot determine why. Is she a cat? Can't be good to put around rabbits even of the anthropomorphic nature. Though if it's Cordon getting his fluffy head bitten off in animated form, I'll endure. Who framed Peter Rabbit? The evil cat lady!! Trust not, her twitching whiskers!

klaynexas3:
Whereas if the bad retelling was never done in the first place, you won't have new people looking at it, but you'll have someone that actually looks at the source material with respect and they can be willing to give a new retelling a go with executives not being able to point at a recent failure and say "well of course it won't sell, people don't like Peter Rabbit."

Eh, "respect"? Who decides what that means? Art isn't some delicate thing - it doesn't need kid gloves, and there is nothing sacred about it. Potter's stories aren't yours or anyone else's to be preserved in any given state, and have been around since 1902, apparently. I have a sneaky feeling they'll endure any and all kinds of adaptation...

To coincide with this, if a bad retelling or sequel or something comes out for something that someone loves, it can often leave a bad taste in the person's mouth even if they haven't seen this new retelling. An example of this can be with the Star Wars prequels. One of my coworkers loves a majority of things Star Wars, but when the prequels came out he grew to hate it, because now everything was being tied into these new movies and that was all everyone would talk about, even if they were just talking shit about it, it still meant talking about the new movies, rather than getting to discuss the good parts of the Star Wars universe that was around before these movies, or even the better parts that started to come out around this time that weren't the movies themselves.

That's rather pathetic, I think, and deeply insecure - to be so wildly uncertain in one's own thoughts and feelings. I loathe/detest the Fox X-Men films, but not a single second of any of them changes the comics on my shelves or the stories that've already been told.

So it really isn't an unreasonable response for someone to be unhappy about news like this, it's a perfectly natural response.

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that. Also, you're ostensibly reacting to a film's pre-production... which surely counts as a premature reaction. It could turn out well, middling, or bad, no one has any clue right now.

More Daisy Ridley is always a good thing.

But even she won't get me to watch this.

Darth Rosenberg:
New versions of things don't have any impact on the existence of the older.

I would argue that they do. If the original Arbitrary Title is 100% of what we think of when we think of the name, after a remake the percentage is necessarily lower. That is, the new version muscles in under the same cognitive index. The original gestalt (or "brand" if you're in business) is reassembled to incorporate the new part. There is no way short of actual ignorance to avoid this process, as it's how thinking works.

Sure, the original still exists in an unaltered form. But we are unable to perceive it as such.

I'd have thought Peter Rabbit, and indeed the rest of Beatrix Potter's stories would better suit a television anthology. There was a great one made a couple of decades ago so a remake isn't a terrible idea but I still think TV would be better than film.

Darth Rosenberg:
snip

Well in terms of respect that is of course a far more subjective thing to argue, but my point in that being that some directors, and while this person might not be that kind of person but given his only other big movie under his belt it seems likely, simply just make the movie because they want to make money. Sure, art doesn't need to be treated with kids gloves, but if something is close to me, I'd rather have someone going in with the same mindset that someone like Peter Jackson had when making Lord of the Rings, not Peter Jackson making the Hobbit.

And ultimately you might find it pathetic and have never had the experience of sharing both your hatred of something new with something you love, but that's just you. You're not wrong for not having experienced that, but other people have, and their isn't anything wrong with that, it's human emotions, it's completely unique to an individual's experience, and telling someone they're wrong for feeling that way is a bit simple minded.

My whole point is I'm not asking you to be pissed off with Rosac or anyone else, I'm just asking you to understand why he's pissed off, even if you don't agree. I've seen too many people on this site just acting as though it isn't okay to not be happy about something like this or a remake or reboot, but that's not for any one of them to decide whether it's okay for an individual to not be happy about something, and in fact is definitely not okay to be telling someone they shouldn't be feeling how they are feeling.

Is she playing the rabbit? All that stood out to me about her performance in Star Wars was how often she barred all of her teeth while running.

klaynexas3:
Well in terms of respect that is of course a far more subjective thing to argue, but my point in that being that some directors, and while this person might not be that kind of person but given his only other big movie under his belt it seems likely, simply just make the movie because they want to make money.

It is a business, ergo isn't it entirely logical that that's likely to happen? You or I may not personally like it, but is there anything intrinsically wrong in someone making something just to make money?

Sure, art doesn't need to be treated with kids gloves, but if something is close to me, I'd rather have someone going in with the same mindset that someone like Peter Jackson had when making Lord of the Rings, not Peter Jackson making the Hobbit.

But does it alter the existence, availability, or DNA of 'the original' or whatever you may most value? And if not, where's the harm, and where's the purpose/value in being pissed off?

And ultimately you might find it pathetic and have never had the experience of sharing both your hatred of something new with something you love, but that's just you.

If I'm reading that line correctly; I did give an example, the Fox X-Men films. Also, it may just be a figure of speech, but the H word is never actually that constructive... particularly for something as effectively unimportant as a film, book, or whatever piece of entertainment/art may be in question.

My whole point is I'm not asking you to be pissed off with Rosac or anyone else, I'm just asking you to understand why he's pissed off, even if you don't agree. I've seen too many people on this site just acting as though it isn't okay to not be happy about something like this or a remake or reboot, but that's not for any one of them to decide whether it's okay for an individual to not be happy about something, and in fact is definitely not okay to be telling someone they shouldn't be feeling how they are feeling.

I'm not pissed off at all, I'm just questioning the response. Is it overly rational, reasonable, or measured? Is it a reaction of perspective?

I feel over-identification with 'stuff' is a big issue for the nerdier community/communities. For me it was one of the defining - poisonous - features of the whole gamergate thing. A criticism of that kind of over-identifying culture is necessary, I reckon. The things we consume - no matter how much we personally, emotionally care about them - are not 'us', and nothing that affects or impacts them has any real consequence. Unless, of course, there's some kind of retroactive purge going against giving consumers choice between versions... (George Lucas, please stand up) That said, even with Star Wars I have to respect authorship; it was his world and his story, so if he wishes to tamper with his creations that's his creative prerogative.

StatusNil:
Sure, the original still exists in an unaltered form. But we are unable to perceive it as such.

Er, yes we are? It may be a spiritual adaptation, so to speak, but on this very table is a Blu-Ray of Marvel's Civil War as well as the graphic novel. I can play compare all I wish (hence why they're out as I've only recently bought/seen the film), but the original is perceived as it was, and as it always will be. They are related, but still distinct.

If someone cherishes Potter's books and art, none of that will ever be affected by whatever happens with retellings of the same tale/s. Indeed, for anything to endure it needs to be retold, reimagined. If anything the essence and identity of the original is preserved through retellings.

It's not a direct parallel, given he was discussing folk tales, but Philip Pullman has a great take on the relationship between iteration and preservation:

"But being in a book has its drawbacks. It gives a fixed quality to things. It seems to imply that all that scholarship and learning should be respected in the way we respect ancient monuments, by preserving them exactly as they are, by walking around them carefully and speaking quietly and not disturbing anything. It seems to imply that nothing should change.

And that is the greatest danger for stories such as these; if they remain undisturbed, they will die of neglect. They should be taken out and made to dance. A superb example of the sort of thing I mean is Benjamin Zephaniah's dub poetry version of the strange old tale Tam Lin, set in a world of clubs and DJ's and sex in the back of a car and immigrants without official papers. It makes something new out of something old, and the old is still there beside the new, to inspire another telling another day."

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here