Culture Why Andy Serkis Turned ‘Animal Farm’ Into a Family Film—and What It Teaches Kids

Link (Archive)

Why Andy Serkis Turned ‘Animal Farm’ Into a Family Film—and What It Teaches Kids​

IMG_7340.jpeg
Yes, Andy Serkis has heard the controversy about his film Animal Farm, out in theaters on May 1, 2026. Why would he create a family-friendly adaptation of George Orwell’s famously dark 1945 book which uses farm animals to critique totalitarianism? For the beloved director, actor, and dad of three, the answer is simple: He wants to get young minds thinking.

“We wanted to aim it at young inquiring minds so that parents could ask them what they thought about things,” says Serkis, who fell in love with the book as a kid and wanted to make this film for about 15 years. “That was one of the objectives of it—placing them in the driving seat.”

It’s what inspired the creation of the character Lucky, a piglet who does not appear in the book, battling between his own morals and tyranny. Serkis envisioned children exploring their own ideas about what's right and wrong through the likable (and adorable) main character, who is perfectly voiced by Strangers Things star Gaten Matarazzo.

“You go on this journey with him being sucked into this more glamorous world of everything that the greed of the pigs brings them,” says the director, who also voices original Manor Farm owner Mr. Jones in the film. “We just thought that'd be good for kids to experience.”

But readers of the book will recognize other characters, including main antagonist Napoleon, brilliantly voiced by Seth Rogen, and the dedicated Boxer, beautifully brought to life by Woody Harrelson, among others. And even if they notice other changes, such as Freida Pilkington, the reimagined farm owner Mr. Pilkington memorably voiced by Glenn Close, the themes are pretty much in line with Orwell’s book.

“We’ve not drifted that far from his intention,” says the Planet of the Apes star. “It’s just making it more applicable to the world that we're living in now, rather than totalitarian Russia of the 1940s…And we worked very closely with the Orwell estate to establish that if we were going to tell the story, they believed that it was the right thing to do to make it a more contemporary version.”

What Kids Can Learn From the 'Animal Farm' Movie​

In the PG-rated film, kids will see how being power-hungry can corrupt a family or a society and how inequality is normalized when the animals in the story aren't treated fairly. They'll hear the famous phrase, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." And especially through the friendship of Lucky and Boxer, they'll grasp why that phrase is so problematic.

But this film isn't without humor. Kids will get a laugh along the way with fart jokes, a slaughterhouse misunderstanding, and more lighthearted scenes. Don't worry about a bleak conclusion, either. This film offers families a much happier ending, another change from the book.

“As an eternally kind of relevant book, we know that history repeats itself. It goes around in cycles but genuinely, we have to ask ourselves, why is it that we always end up in the same position where nothing really moves forward that much?” explains Serkis. "You have to keep trying."

That's the message he hopes kids will understand through the altered ending.

“We’re not tying it up in a nice, shiny bow and saying that we all live happily ever after—far from it," he says. "We're saying it's up to the next generation to at least try. You have to engage and you have to keep questioning the leadership that stopped listening to you and telling you lies because we're living in a world where nobody knows what truth is anymore.”

Is the ‘Animal Farm’ Film Too Dark for Kids?​

Serkis, who also released an Animal Farmaudiobook, acknowledges that the violence in the book can be graphic and upsetting. He made it a point to tone that down in the film, even when portraying the characters.

“We wanted to keep the sinister nature of Napoleon as a charismatic kind of guy you fall for, rather than being a brutal dictator, even though he's malicious and malign underneath it,” he gives as an example. “He's just manages to do it all with a smile in this version.”

Some scenes may still be inappropriate for much younger kids, such as moments of the pigs drinking “naughty juice,” Boxer getting injured, fight scenes, and Napoleon’s eventual takedown and defeat. But overall, children may walk away feeling they can make change, even in their small friend groups, by leading with kindness and compassion, and be empowered to ask questions about politics and social justice—no matter where their families lean politically.

“I don't mind if people like it or dislike it,” says Serkis, “but as long as there's some discourse and everyone engages in conversation about it, that’s the intention of it.”
 
Hate to break it to you Andy, but your side are the totalitarian pigs. Your side are the "more equal than others" elitist animals.
 
The CIA version was already a family film. Weren't you all compelled to watch it during the Cold War?
 
Both can be contributing factors. At least in his day they weren't all obese neon haired buttfucking degenerates who begged the police to arrest people for using the wrong pronouns
Yes there were, commies of the past aren’t any different than commies of today. The only reason why such degenerates are not associated with comie regimes is that they are the first to face the wall once people like Stalin take power
 
I haven't heard the Washington thing, but I did hear a version that said the movie has been in the can for a while and NOBODY wanted it because even pedowood can see what a disaster this is in every possible way
This meant Angel bought it for a ridiculously low price, like Golan Globus cheap. The GG business model was "make the movie for under a million and you will always make money on the international distribution" because you can slop out basically any shit and you'll make it back if it comes in under a million, 80s money
For Angel this is a multi-win, they get a shit load of real names they can say they worked with, a revenue stream they get from the movie's distribution deals, and it establishes them as willing to go outside their perceived comfort zone of Jeebus Movies and that kidnapping movie
 
At least in his day they weren't all obese neon haired buttfucking degenerates who begged the police to arrest people for using the wrong pronouns.
The reason the Soviets called each other "Comrade" was specifically to use a gender neutral, inclusive term; the Bolsheviks wanted to eliminate all class and gender distinctions, so they rejected traditional honorifics as symbols of inequality and abolished gendered titles like "Mr." and "Mrs./Miss" as remnants of the patriarchal Tsarist order.

In fact, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to eliminate gendered distinctions in plural pronouns, basically forcing "they" as the catchall gender-neutral plural pronoun. They did allow singular gender pronouns, at least.

They even tried to force androgynous clothing in the early 1920's, based on factory worker uniforms/jumpsuits, but it never really caught on, since it was so impractical and ugly as fuck.

ys-1tb2-rlb-h-muan-bn.jpegb-d0x.jpeg
 
The reason the Soviets called each other "Comrade" was specifically to use a gender neutral, inclusive term; the Bolsheviks wanted to eliminate all class and gender distinctions, so they rejected traditional honorifics as symbols of inequality and abolished gendered titles like "Mr." and "Mrs./Miss" as remnants of the patriarchal Tsarist order.

In fact, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to eliminate gendered distinctions in plural pronouns, basically forcing "they" as the catchall gender-neutral plural pronoun. They did allow singular gender pronouns, at least.

They even tried to force androgynous clothing in the early 1920's, based on factory worker uniforms/jumpsuits, but it never really caught on, since it was so impractical and ugly as fuck.

View attachment 8945366View attachment 8945367
I love dazzle camo
 
“We wanted to aim it at young inquiring minds so that parents could ask them what they thought about things,” says Serkis, who fell in love with the book as a kid and wanted to make this film for about 15 years. “That was one of the objectives of it—placing them in the driving seat.”
Do you have to change the plot line to do that, though? Because the message of the story itself is still relevant today.

You can’t hate celebrities enough.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't show the animals living happily ever after at the end. The idea that animal farm is stuck on an endless cycle of oppression, revolution, new oppression seems very Orwellian. But givin it is a CIA funded project, I think the real reason for adapting AF and adding that scene is to be a threat to Moscow.
Was reading the book when I saw Animal Farm in high school. The CIA kept it very close to the book except for shortening the part with the horse being put into the trailer to the glue factory.
 
The reason the Soviets called each other "Comrade" was specifically to use a gender neutral, inclusive term; the Bolsheviks wanted to eliminate all class and gender distinctions, so they rejected traditional honorifics as symbols of inequality and abolished gendered titles like "Mr." and "Mrs./Miss" as remnants of the patriarchal Tsarist order.

In fact, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to eliminate gendered distinctions in plural pronouns, basically forcing "they" as the catchall gender-neutral plural pronoun. They did allow singular gender pronouns, at least.

They even tried to force androgynous clothing in the early 1920's, based on factory worker uniforms/jumpsuits, but it never really caught on, since it was so impractical and ugly as fuck.

View attachment 8945366View attachment 8945367
They look a kinda familair.

1777735493474.png

Oompa doompa doompadi do, off to the coal mine with you!
 
Seth Rogen is a legitimate hack retard who can’t write and act for shit.

I’m not surprised he and Serkis avoided the entire point of the novel.
 
How does the the 50s film shit on the book? The animals revolt because conditions were horrible on the farm, they revolt again against the bigs because they were no better or even worse than the farmer. I don't think that violates any themes of the book.
Don’t forget a year before this was released the East German uprising of June 1953 had happened and a couple years later there were the uprisings in Poland and the Hungarian Revolution.

That part was very much a real situation at the time and one the CIA would definitely want to portray as winning
 
Back
Top Bottom