peterrabbit_trailer peterrabbit_trailer
Feature Film

Sony Pictures Animation and Animal Logic’s ‘Peter Rabbit’ Gets A Trailer

Sony Pictures Animation has released a first look at Peter Rabbit, scheduled for U.S. theatrical release on February 9, 2018.

Though the cg/live-action hybrid is being distributed by Sony’s Columbia Pictures and bears the Sony Animation label, it was actually produced by Sydney-based Animal Logic, best known for their work on the Lego feature animation franchise, as well as Happy Feet and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole.

Will Gluck (Annie, Friends with Benefits) directs the film based on the classic Beatrix Potter books. Here’s the synopsis:

Peter Rabbit, the mischievous and adventurous hero who has captivated generations of readers, now takes on the starring role of his own irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude. In the film, Peter’s feud with Mr. McGregor (Domhnall Gleeson) escalates to greater heights than ever before as they rival for the affections of the warm-hearted animal lover who lives next door (Rose Byrne). James Corden voices the character of Peter with playful spirit and wild charm, with Margot Robbie, Elizabeth Debicki, and Daisy Ridley performing the voice roles of the triplets, Flopsy, Mopsy, and Cottontail.

  • Assuming my comment comes first, I just like to say I’ve lost all faith in humanity!

    Just kidding, but really, I wish they didn’t have to do this, but I guess a straightfoward adaptation of the classic tale just won’t cut it these days.

    • Barrett

      I was hoping the upheaval after that North Korean Sony hack had cleared out whatever deadwood suits were responsible for the trashy tone of Sony Animation films.


  • Max C.

    As a British resident who grew up partly on Potter lore, I didn’t think those clowns at Sony would ever make me this furious but they just did. Holy COW. This is a sin. This is the epoch of Sony cringe. More than Emoji Movie and Smurfs combined. Get Sony’s hyper-American “irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude” approach away from every property ever.

    Honestly surprised you didn’t go with the ridiculously overdone scream gag for the thumbnail.

    • Devil_Dinosaur

      I’m American. Don’t lump me in with this.

    • Kirsten st. peter

      I’m an American and even I feel personally attacked by this movie. Beatrix Potter books were so peaceful, heart-warming, and beautiful. I feel like it’d be more fit for a studio Ghilbi adaptation or whatever studio did Ernest & Celestine rather than LOUD OBNOXIOUS IN-YOUR-FACE SCREAM FEST SONY. I know I shouldn’t judge a movie from just a trailer alone… but I have 0 faith in Sony after Smurfs and the Emoji movie atrocity. Unfortunately, those movies still make sickening amounts of money so I don’t think they’ll be stopping any time soon. RIP Peter :(

    • Roca

      I’m also personally offended as this is so out of keeping with the spirit of the source material it’s appalling. :(

    • Landon Kemp

      Even as an American, I can’t believe this exists.

    • I never grew up reading Peter Rabbit, but by hell when I saw that trailer I just knew a book from a hundred years ago wasn’t like the hot mess the trailer showed us. One positive aspect though is that it may compel those who didn’t read it to go check it out, it’s not like the movie can ever replace the original

  • Jack Newman

    I thought these movies died in 2015.

  • Troy

    I almost thought this was a Hop sequel due to a similar composition (suspiciously).

  • Tre

    Oh. Hell. No. -_-

    • And oddly, the original publisher for these stories over in the UK is fine with this from what I’ve read up about it.

      • Tre

        If it means profit for them by selling books, I don’t think they care. Why can’t others respect the original creators work like Shultz’s family did to make sure Blue Sky kept the ‘Peanuts’ movie true to the source material?

        • Who knows, I don’t know if there are any living descendants of Beatrix Potter personally. That might be the reason they went ahead anyway.

  • Elijah Samuel Abrams


  • Johnny Marques

    Mixing live action with animation rarely works too well, but this looks so wildly uninspiring I even had ominous flashbacks of the trailer for the upcoming Woody Woodpecker movie.

    • Dave 52

      To be fair, the character designs and animation are pretty top notch despite the fact that they don’t really fit with the tone this movie looks to be going for.

  • Dave 52

    Well, at least the character animation and designs look great, At least it’s good to know that Animal Logic puts it’s effort into films that really don’t deserve it. The funny thing is that the character designs are true to the book yet they don’t even fit with the tone this movie is going for.

    • That’s my concern, it looks perfect had it been period-based and not modern day. The characters feel like they’re taken out of their element by having to be made contemporary.

  • Glowworm

    The animation actually looks great–but then they had to turn Peter Rabbit into this jerk fraternity brother-like character and give him a voice that doesn’t fit him at all. Also, Mr. McGregor looks way too young and handsome.
    However, I did chuckle at the deer in the headlights joke at the end.

    • ランダム アニメーター

      Agreed. Domhnall Gleeson is a great actor but totally miscast here as Mr McGregor, as are most of the voices, especially James Corden as the title character. Still, kids who don’t know the books or the original TVC London series might like this.
      And talking about animated rabbits, let’s hope the forthcoming ‘Watership Down’ miniseries remains more faithful to the source material.

    • mashed potato

      Who in Sony’s frozen hell thought it’d be a good idea to cast a youngster as McGregor? That beard, that grump, it practically SCREAMS for Brian Blessed, who could’ve saved this crapshow in its current incarnation.

      • Glowworm

        The other problem is that he comes across as the sympathetic character in this trailer, not Peter Rabbit. Notice that rather than looking pissed off that the animals have trashed his house, he sighs and sits rather resignedly on the couch. It’s as if he’s just plain used to this by now–yet obviously tired of Peter’s crap.

        • mashed potato

          … That is a horrifying premise. In Sony’s version, Peter Rabbit is the antagonistic douchemissile. Feels like they set Peter up to be a-hole muy grande to serve redemption later in the movie.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    I think Beatrix Potter is rolling in her grave.

    • My sentiments exactly. I read the books as a child and knew I was in for disappointment when I saw the photo above. The trailer just proved me right. Ugghhh

    • Roca

      Whoever in her family sold them the rights should be ashamed of themselves. >:(

  • Elsi Pote

    Nothing close to a surprise as this is the Sony many still support by buying whatever garbage they hustle.

    Want this kind of aberration around? Keep buying anything from Sony.

    Action speaks louder than words!

    • It’s why The Emoji Movie managed to even make back its cost and then some.

    • Barrett

      I guess the decisions on tone of story must be coming from the high-up suits at Sony. They keep making terrible decisions when it comes to creative direction. Why would any animation director worth their salt want anything to do with them after what they did with Genndy’s projects and Lauren Faust? I really wish Genndy would drop them like hot potato.

  • Christ that was painful to watch. I had a big book of all of The Beatrix Potter stories, when I was a wee-child, although I mostly only liked the illustrations of all the animals wearing human clothes. I remember watching some adaptation of the original Peter Rabbit story on TV at my grandma’s house too. I would imagine there have been plenty of faithful adaptations of these stories over the decades….

    This though, in all honestly it may not be a total flop, I’m sure it’ll be a passable movie for parents to take their kids do, I can see small children enjoying it because of all the animals doing goofy stuff

    • The ones produced by the London studio TVC are the best (The World of Peter Rabbit and Friends). That’s about as far as it goes for Potter’s original illustrations adapted to animation.

      “I can see small children enjoying it because of all the animals doing goofy stuff”

      And I suppose that’s all we can expect out of this, though I hope they remember something of Potter’s writings to prove to me otherwise.

      • ランダム アニメーター

        I still hope that one day Lupus Film (The Snowman and the Snowdog, We’re Going on a Bear Hunt, Ethel & Ernest) will do a feature film of this beloved character and his friends in the vein of TVC London’s TV series.

        • It would be nice. I still think TVC did the stories justice anyway and I couldn’t see anything else done with them, even if you did try to great “new adventures” with these characters, though I can see why interest in wanting more of that is why we’re getting this film.

          • ランダム アニメーター

            Emma Thompson wrote three new Peter Rabbit books at publisher Warne’s behest. I have no idea how Thompson’s books compare to Potter’s original books since I haven’t read them, but they were generally well received, especially the first one, ‘The Further Tale of Peter Rabbit’ (2012). I doubt any of them could be adapted for the cinema, but three new animated shorts would be nice too.

  • Tony

    “Peter Rabbit, the mischievous and adventurous hero who has captivated generations of readers, now takes on the starring role of his own irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude.”
    Because when you think Beatrix Potter, the first thing that comes to mind is “irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude.”

  • Pedro Nakama

    When I heard this was being made I thought it would be true to the book. It looks like it’s more true to Alvin and the Chipmunks.

    • A number of films seem to be on this path of wanting to place talking CGI characters into a live-action environment and the results tend to be a mixed bag. I forgot a lot of these came out around the late 2000’s/early 2010’s like Alvin, Yogi Bear, The Smurfs or perhaps Hop. We’re still seeing it happen with the Woody Woodpecker film as well. It just seems to be a trend all its own.

      I think such concepts like talking/humanized animals in a human world could be done effectively if given the right stories to make it work (for me, I wouldn’t mind if Kenneth Grahame’s The Wind in the Willows was done in the same fashion as long as they stay true to its time period and not ‘modernize’ it).

      • Barrett

        Hop…..YEAH…..*that’s* the film this most reminds me of, and not just because of the rabbit. I really wish the atrociousness of the movies you cited above made the suits reconsider greenlighting this dreck. I mean, other than the Chipmunks films, didn’t most of those movies bomb anyway?

        I guess the Smurfs one had to have made money for them to make a second one, but then they thankfully abandoned the creepy uncanny valley Smurfs to make a proper animated one (too bad that one didn’t do better at the box office!)

      • Roman Reigns Owns The IWC

        I kinda enjoyed the Rocky & Bullwinkle movie, it’s not perfect but I thought it was fun and had some charm to it. Almost hard to believe the same studio is releasing that Woody Woodpecker movie.

  • Andrew Kieswetter

    ‘This is only the beginning!’ Oh dear God!

  • LeeFW

    Aside from the completely ill fitting voice (Bafflingly they could have had the perfect Peter with Gleeson) this just feels completely obnoxious. Paddington modernised a well loved character and did it while maintaining the spirit of the original…this however doesn’t feel true to the Peter Rabbit character at all.

  • JodyMorgan

    The thumbnail image piqued my interest; “his own irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude” squashed it like a bug.

  • TalonsofIceandFire

    As a fan of Peter Rabbit and other Beatrix Potter books, I watched this trailer with an open mind and good faith. And purely from this trailer, it sucks, it really sucks. Only good things are the fact that the cast is British (or mostly British) and the Deer in the Headlight scene. But then again, that scene would be funnier if it had NOTHING TO DO WITH PETER FRICKIN’ RABBIT.

  • Katharina

    “There comes the Creator!!” Me: The Creator is a Women named Beatrix Potter! At the first few seconds i thought: Wow! What a great animation! Peter rans into the Birds Me: Ah! Another typical american movie with “American Pie-like-Partys”. What did you do with this beautiful masterpiece of an book?! Cant we get a serious story with an heartwarming storylining?! God damn! Why must everything be loud and crazy?! The books are books for children. Why do you have to make this nonsence-movie with no heart in it. Please you creators, take a look at some japanese movies for children like: “Spirited Away”, “Koe no Katachi – A silent Voice”, or “You are Umasou” <—-THIS is the better Story of "The good Dinosaur", because "The good Dinosaur" has the same rediculous actions like many other american movies. Please, you can send my comment to the creator-studio, because they have to wake up already. We need more "serious" movies for our kids, with less slapstick and more Heart! (sry for my english. I'm german)

    • Barrett

      The Good Dinosaur is like a quiet masterpiece compared to what this film appears to be – and I thought the Good Dinosaur was pretty flawed and dull.

  • Ki Innis

    Studios acquire classic properties like these because they “proven previous success and high recognition” — but then they completely deconstruct the property until they are unrecognisable or even alienating to the audiences they were marketing to in the first place…. Where is the logic in this?

    • Metlow Rovenstein

      There is none. Don’t deconstruct, just replicate what made the property successful and make a movie with that philosophy.

      • You wish they all did that, but postmodernism is quite strong these days.

        • Landon Kemp

          And what exactly would “postmodernism” mean in this case?

  • Paul

    Sooooooooooooo BAD..!! Seriously… who appointed this director to make this film..? THIS IS GONNA FLOP…!!

  • mashed potato

    Paddington update retained its charm without rolling in “irreverent, contemporary comedy with attitude”. How could Peter Rabbit not go down the similar path?

    • Barrett

      Exactly! Is it too much to ask to make something charming and fun (a la Stuart Little, Paddington, or Babe) instead of snarky and “with attitude?” I mean, honestly, Hollywood has been trying (and mostly failing) to push the whole “attitude” thing down our throats since the early 90s. It got old a LONG time ago, and thankfully declined a bit, but like jeans fallin’ off inner city youths’ #sses, it is FAR past time for that 90s trend to DIE.

  • Mesterius

    Browsing through the synopsis…

    “…irrerevent, contemporary comedy with attitude.”

    I really don’t want to click that play button now.

  • James

    Yes, Sony Animation! You’ve done it again! Another cinematic classic! Move over Hitchcock, there’s a new sheriff in town!

  • Gojira007

    The Emoji Movie: I’mma be the worst, most nakedly cynical god-awful PoS animated film from Sony Pictures to come out this year!
    Peter Rabbit 2K17: Hold my beer.

  • Oh boy! Another soulless movie in the likes of the Alvin and the Chipmunks
    squeals, the live-action Smurfs, and Hop. If Sony Pictures Animation wanted
    to improve their reputation after the Emoji Movie, looks like this won’t do it.

  • Barrett

    It’s really too bad that (from the looks of the trailer) the writing and direction are so crass and lowest-common-denominator, because the animation is beautiful. I wish they had gone with something a bit more classy/classic. I mean, it doesn’t have to be all artsy and quirky like The Fantastic Mr. Fox, but would something more emotionally resonant like “Babe” been too much to ask? As it reads right now, it seems very much like something meant for young children & proles.

  • The deer-in-the-deadlights gag at the end made me laugh. I’ll admit that.

  • Inkan1969

    Is it too much to hope that this might be another case of “Paddington Bear” misleading trailer?

  • JonBoy

    I think it’s time to retire the whole “one character screams and then the other screams back” thing, it’s way too over used.
    I wonder if they’ll have “talk to the paw” or “seriously!?” in there as well, just to round it off.

  • Netko

    I feel so much disgust at this, it’s like if Hop wanted to insult a cherished property. A few months ago I showed the beautiful 90’s animated version to a friend and we felt so relaxed watching it, lamenting the state of today’s entertainment and saying that had this been made today, it would have to be filled with forced comedy, typical kids’ stories plots and put into modern era to be “relatable” (can we please kill the idea that kids can’t “relate” to settings that aren’t modern? Really?). I haven’t watched a kids’ cartoon in so long that didn’t feel the need to be hyperactive and cynical all the time. And now this is coming out, taking that cute, relaxing world and taking a dump all over it, “modernizing it” for the sake of some imaginary asshole audience who apparently couldn’t enjoy this if it didn’t involve stale humor and a frat boy personality for the main character. And also no old people (McGregor for those who don’t know was an old man who chased Peter out of his garden after he ate his carrots), because we’re trying to turn this into the new Alvin and the Chipmunks. Just, why? People who know Peter Rabbit aren’t going to want to watch this and people who don’t aren’t going to be interested in yet another crappy comedy involving talking animals.

  • otterhead

    Well, the pig in a waistcoat was cute. And there’s a badger and a hedgehog. So it’s not a total loss.

    But James Corden’s voice is sadly as ill-fitting as I’d dreaded it would be when I heard he’d been cast. Peter Rabbit is a big kid. He shouldn’t sound like a wacky grownup man.

    I’m waiting for the inevitable movie poster of Peter standing with his arms folded, looking cocky and clever, a DreamWorks expression on his face, and the words PARTY ANIMAL underneath.

  • I am sorry, but WTF is this?! What have they done to the beautiful story of Peter Rabbit??? Seriously?! What were they thinking??

  • David

    The godawful humor in this is cringe worthy at best. The special effects where wasted on this monstrosity.

  • Landon Kemp

    Just reading the plot synopsis tells me that they just didn’t care. Like, I’m not even a fan of Beatrix Potter’s works, and I still can’t believe someone at Sony approved of this. It makes me wish they found out about all the negative reception, realized “Oh crap, maybe this was a stupid idea,” and then retooled it around into something more faithful. But I doubt it. I SO doubt it.

  • WentHulk

    This looks interesting. But I think I’ll suspend judgement. I’m American too by the way