TV Series Talk: Winifred

[Lutra]

Ok, I've got an image from the TV series to go along with my topic.




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?   

[Folgrimeo]

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.

[Osu]

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

[Redwall Musician]

Maybe we should move this to the Character Discussion.

[Osu]

Maybe we should move this to the Character Discussion.

Whoops, good point. *moves*

[Tiria Wildlough]

I did wonder about it when I saw the movie, but I guess she is just different...

[Nightfire]

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?

[Skalrag of Marshank]

I wasn't sure whether to cover my brother's eyes or not when Winifred appeared. It's just shocking.

[Captain Tammo]

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

[Nightfire]

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.

[Lutra]

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.

How 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.

I 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.

[Nightfire]

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.

[Skalrag of Marshank]

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?

[James Gryphon]

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.

[Nightfire]

Besides, no one ever makes a fuss about all of the Redwallers not wearing pants.