Ok, I've got an image from the TV series to go along with my topic.
(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e294/mr300/redwall-group-winifred.jpg)
Maybe I ought to be bugging Nelvana about this one, but lets ponder this one. Throughout the first and second seasons of Redwall, we see just about every abbey creature wear some sort of clothing. One of the main characters who wears nothing at all is Winifred the otter.
Why?
Its not like we see her swimming where clothes would certainly get in the way and become heavy. If you saw Winifred in the abbey pond every now and then, well we'd probably have an explanation. Even so, other otters in the series, Cheek and Keyla have clothes. Nelvana seemed content in dressing every other creature up on some type of clothing, except one otter it seems.
So what gives....why not give Winifred something too? :P
She does stand out like a sore thumb. Just as well, I didn't remember her much from the book. We've seen plenty of shows where the animals wear nothing, and it's not a bother when everyone else is that way. It's not something to go tee-hee over either as she looks perfectly normal. I was going to say I'd have a problem with Constance not wearing anything, but a few viewings of "Franklin" and a certain Japanese film established it wouldn't seem too odd. Certainly not deserving of mind bleach.
Now, why is she wearing nothing when everyone else is (except for the birds)? Can't say laziness of drawing clothes. Good point that it can't be "she swims in the pond" because we never see her do that and there was Starwort and Marigold in the third season who wore clothes, never taking a dip in a ocean. Maybe she swims in between episodes, possible since it'd be fun to do and none of the other otters in the series had easy access to water or a reason to relax and dive in. She's also the only character that I recall who was ridden by a mouse at some point. That shouldn't matter, but a character on all fours could be associated with a feral form. Jess Squirrel climbing on the Abbey rooftops defeats that idea. And it can't be that she wasn't important enough to get clothes, since there's the occasional shot of a bunch of Abbey residents given enough detail. Maybe none of the Abbey clothes fit or she doesn't want to be in a military hare outfit, but surely they'd be accommodating of all sizes.
I think it's just an intentional fashion choice, or for convenience of taking a dip in the Abbey pond between episodes. The book did say she was a great fisher. She probably caught fish the otter way, which would mean getting into the water.
I couldn't help but LOL when I saw that picture. You're right! She really does stand out now you've mentioned it...
As for me, when I read the books I don't picture the characters with clothes, really, unless it's mentioned specifically, such as the uniforms of Redwallers/Long Patrol/Guosim/etc. Clothing in the Redwall world seems to serve any purpose but modesty as far as I can see, so there'd be no reason for Winifred to wear something in the first place.
On the other hand, in the Rogue Crew we see a hedgehog without his spikes - the only other hedgehog in the viscinity is horrified, so perhaps modesty does exist. I dunno.
I think the animators were just throwing in some variation. XD
Maybe we should move this to the Character Discussion.
Quote from: Redwall Musician on July 27, 2011, 05:05:18 PM
Maybe we should move this to the Character Discussion.
Whoops, good point. *moves*
I did wonder about it when I saw the movie, but I guess she is just different... ;)
Hey, maybe we should have a thread to post images from the movie. That sounds like it would be fun. What do you guys think? I'll start that thread if you guys like the idea. How exactly DO you post pictures though?
I wasn't sure whether to cover my brother's eyes or not when Winifred appeared. It's just shocking.
Yea I thought they should've at least given her a tunic or whatever. But it's not the end of the world. You don't see half the characters wearing pants anyway hahaha
She's an OTTER. Clothes would wiegh her down and cause her to sink. I know that every time I get soaked with water when I'm in my clothes and not a swimsuit, then I feel very heavy and leaden. Wearing clothes would cause her to sink and limit her mobility. Give her a break, will you? Besides, the Sparra don't wear clothes, even though one bird in the series, Chibb, wore a hat at one time. The belt of Martin is the most clothing you'll ever see on the Sparra, yet no one ever makes a murmur about THAT.
Quote from: Lady Amber on July 30, 2011, 01:53:47 AM
She's an OTTER. Clothes would wiegh her down and cause her to sink. I know that every time I get soaked with water when I'm in my clothes and not a swimsuit, then I feel very heavy and leaden. Wearing clothes would cause her to sink and limit her mobility. Give her a break, will you? Besides, the Sparra don't wear clothes, even though one bird in the series, Chibb, wore a hat at one time. The belt of Martin is the most clothing you'll ever see on the Sparra, yet no one ever makes a murmur about THAT.
I brought that argument up in my original post with the picture. If that was so, then how do we explain Cheek and Keyla wearing clothes? Granted I don't know how often Keyla saw water as a slave, but I'm just looking at this at face value. Winifred sticks out.
QuoteHow exactly DO you post pictures though?
[*img]http://www.website.com[/*img]
Take out the * in both cases. I only did that because otherwise I would trigger the image tag.
QuoteI wasn't sure whether to cover my brother's eyes or not when Winifred appeared. It's just shocking.
Heh, that made me chuckle. Not shocking just so much as....different.
Cheek was afraid of water, remember? He never went swimming in his life before the time when they were attacked in the river.
And Keyla was a slave who never got to swim, so he didn't really have to worry about clothes wearing him down. If you all think this out properly, like intelligent beings, then it sounds very logical and realistic.
Well, I don't mean to be argumentative, but if you just wore a vest or something it wouldn't weigh you down much, would it?
It wouldn't physically weigh you down too much (although it would still add enough to be clumsy), but an otter has a streamlined form for swimming; wearing a vest would create more drag and ruin that, causing them to swim less efficiently. It's like how professional swimmers wear low-drag wetsuits, which can improve their speed and hydrodynamics, only the otter's natural form is the wetsuit, and anything they put on on top of it makes it notably less efficient.
So Winifred not wearing any clothing makes sense for a creature that's built to go in the water; the only question is if all the other active water creatures also are unclothed, or if she's the *only* one. From what I've heard, though, the others might not have had much of a chance to swim.
This is why having a fourth season, say, one for Mossflower would have helped, since it would've given us a glimpse of Skipper and his crew. If logic was the reasoning behind Winifred's garb (or lack thereof), Skipper and the rest of the Corim otters also would be unclad.
Besides, no one ever makes a fuss about all of the Redwallers not wearing pants.
Yeah, Skalrag just wears a cloak and belt.
Calm down, Amber, I wasn't trying to make a big fuss over it. It simply seemed very odd for one of the main characters of the abbey to not wear anything, when every other creature had something to wear.
Uh-huh. We're so used to clothed animals, it's kinda shocking. :o
Well then don't look at my profile pic! Groaaaaannnnn! Another topic over 120 days old? now THAT is :o
Quote from: Skalrag of Marshank on July 31, 2011, 07:28:52 PM
Uh-huh. We're so used to clothed animals, it's kinda shocking. :o
And a normal person would freak out in real life if that happened, we would just be like AWESOME!
clothes or no clothes, the animals in Redwall are awesome.
Well duh! why would we be here besides?
Lol, I know, I know :P
Besides, you have to be crazy to NOT like them! ;D
I know, Right? That is so true Lol
About the Winifred thing... That's kinda creepy if you ask me! :o :D
Stay on topic please. :)
This is on topic!!! >:(
I would say Winifred is fine because Rewall is not the first cartoon with animals like that that I saw.
Quote from: Wolfstar on April 04, 2012, 12:37:58 AM
I would say Winifred is fine because Rewall is not the first cartoon with animals like that that I saw.
Naturally of course, but when every other character in the show Winifred is in wears something, and she doesn't, well, she sticks out. ;) She's fine as a character. I've never doubted that.
I like Winifred, she's awesome
Maybe Winifred's just a nudist.
That is NOT funny! >:(
Quote from: KaiTheDog on April 06, 2012, 11:47:11 PM
Maybe Winifred's just a nudist.
Danflorreguba is right. That is not funny.
No, it's not.
I'm sorry about the joke I made, guys. I was trying to be kinda silly and, well, I failed at it :(.
Quote from: KaiTheDog on April 07, 2012, 11:20:25 PM
I'm sorry about the joke I made, guys. I was trying to be kinda silly and, well, I failed at it :(.
It's OK. We fail at stuff to. ( Well, I think we do. ;D ;D ;)
I sure does! ;D
Quote from: danflorreguba on April 08, 2012, 12:31:02 AM
I sure does! ;D
I do too. *remembers a certain April Fool prank* ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)
BUT let's get back on topic now.
Winifred, for some reason can't stand her.
Quote from: MatthiasMan on April 10, 2012, 04:03:15 AM
Winifred, for some reason can't stand her.
WHA!?! What is wrong with you? How can you NOT stand Winifred!?! :D That's like the weirdest confession I've ever heard. :D
SEE?! SEE?! Told ya I'm different!
Quote from: MatthiasMan on April 10, 2012, 04:34:29 PM
SEE?! SEE?! Told ya I'm different!
We are all different in one way or another.
Yeah, but I'm totally weird and different. Wonder why people come up to me and bother me when I'm reading.
Cause we are all weird cause we spend time reading awesome books instead of just school ones! (if the people that bother you even read their school books)
I'm glad I discovered the Redwall series ;D
Ha, me too. But that's what makes me solitary.
I'm pretty solitary too!
I'm more of an animal person than a people person. If I could, I'd only hang with animals :D
Ditto that! :)
Heeheehee!
Animals are amazing.
Yay! Animals are great
Technically humans are animals.
Mammals, not animals.
Well, yeah.
BIG difference Matthias.
Winifred wasn't my favorite otter. She was maybe like in 5th place.
Well, she didn't actually do much, but she probably would have been cool if she'd been a major character.
Do you realize that I'm mostly saying that because I like otters?
She didn't have a large role in the book either, so it stays true to the story in that regard. Winifred is one of those who is just there, like the other Redwallers not given major roles.
yeah
they should have made her role bigger
I honestly don't see where Winifred could've been used more. We already had Constance playing the motherly role and helping out with the riddles, just as in the book.
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on April 17, 2012, 02:24:17 AM
Mammals, not animals.
WHY DOES EVERYONE SAY THAT MAMMALS AREN'T ANIMALS?????? THEY MOST CERTAINLY ARE!!
Please calm down, Jetthebinturong. You're right that mammals are animals, but there is no need for shouting.
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on April 25, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
they should have made her role bigger
Her role wasn't that big in
Redwall. It was bigger in
Mattimeo, where she was helping look after Rollo.
Quote from: Tiria Wildlough on August 13, 2012, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on April 25, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
they should have made her role bigger
Her role wasn't that big in Redwall. It was bigger in Mattimeo, where she was helping look after Rollo.
Let me rephrase I meant I would have liked to see more of her character.
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on August 13, 2012, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Tiria Wildlough on August 13, 2012, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on April 25, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
they should have made her role bigger
Her role wasn't that big in Redwall. It was bigger in Mattimeo, where she was helping look after Rollo.
Let me rephrase I meant I would have liked to see more of her character.
AMEN! I would have LOVED to see more of her! She was pretty cool.
Winifred was....bland....there's not much to write about her because she never had much of a role.
Quote from: danflorreguba on September 08, 2012, 12:52:35 AM
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on August 13, 2012, 03:29:04 PM
Quote from: Tiria Wildlough on August 13, 2012, 08:46:10 AM
Quote from: Redwallfan7 on April 25, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
they should have made her role bigger
Her role wasn't that big in Redwall. It was bigger in Mattimeo, where she was helping look after Rollo.
Let me rephrase I meant I would have liked to see more of her character.
AMEN! I would have LOVED to see more of her! She was pretty cool.
I know, right?
Quote from: Skalrag of Marshank on July 29, 2011, 11:37:57 PM
I wasn't sure whether to cover my brother's eyes or not when Winifred appeared. It's just shocking.
You'd be wise to cover his eyes...I think... ???
Sorry, this was a repeat of a post,.
pretty much a repeat of my later, complete post.
I accidentally reposted my first post here by accident.
And then there's the comment nightfire made about the birds never wearing clothes. It's not clear whether they do or don't in the books, but it's implied pretty well that they don't.
I see what you're saying, but please don't post more than once in a row.
OK.
There are any number of simple explanations as to why some animals wear clothes and others don't. The animals could be wearing clothes for practical reasons such as warmth or protection. There are also a number of narrative reasons Brian chose to have the animals to wear clothes. He chose to leave a many things such as the characters' sizes and whether they walk on two legs or four. Maybe this is something he left up to the reader's imagination.
Considering the animals in Redwall have fur that covers anything that needs covered, whether they wear clothing or not is irrelevant. It's probable that Brian had the characters wear clothes as a method of humanizing them. This was repeated the TV series and some otters wore clothes and others didn't based on the reasons other people have already stated.
Another thing to remember, Redwall has it's roots in archetypes and legends (foxes are cunning and demonic snakes). Many stories contain a common fault in humanity that humans are the only species to be vain enough to see themselves as naked. I'm not saying that Brian was directly referring to this, just that the characters aren't that concerned about wearing clothes for the same reason we are.
Hmm...I'm still curious though. I've never seen Ironbeak, my favorite, as wearing clothes, but could he be and Jacques just didn't specify?
Quote from: General Ironbeak on January 01, 2014, 10:51:44 PM
Hmm...I'm still curious though. I've never seen Ironbeak, my favorite, as wearing clothes, but could he be and Jacques just didn't specify?
I don't think any birds have worn clothing, but they aren't anthropomorphic like the mammals and some reptiles are. Unlike the Matthias, for example, who has a more human shape, a bird like Ironbeak wouldn't fit into a shirt or tunic. It would probably restrict their flight, too.
And now that I think about it, the birds COULD wear clothes...I mean, the crows in "Dumbo" wear clothes without a problem, so why couldn't the ones in Redwall?
^ Redwall and Dumbo are two different universes. Some wear clothes while others do not. It's just how you imagine the animals, really. I don't really care if they wear clothing or not.
I'm not saying they're the same universe. I'm just saying TW made it sound like clothes would be IMPOSSIBLE for a bird to wear.
I think it's just a matter of opinion. If it specifically says someone had clothes, then they obviously did. If it doesn't, you can decide whether or not they are when you imagine them.
I always thought they had a cool tunic or a long habbit on