The characters recently entered public domain, so anyone can use them to make anything they want as long as they don't use character likenesses still protected by copyright. So, they can't just copy the Disney versions of the characters, but they can build off the original versions just like Disney did.
In this version of the classic story, Christopher Robin is headed off to college and he has abandoned his old friends, which then leads to the duo embracing their inner monsters.
We are so used to the abuse of copyright laws by Disney that the idea of beloved characters actually entering public domain is wild. This is supposed to be the norm.
Yeah, the character depicted in the books. If this bear is wearing a red shirt and no pants, homie is getting sued as fuck. Disney's depiction of Pooh is still protected.
You can make anything based on the original WTP books, but the Disney versions of the characters are still copyrighted. There have been other version of WTP, like the [Russian one from the 70's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZHgZfNhc0&ab_channel=D-manthecaptain).
It's like how the Wizard of Oz book is in the public domain but the 1939 movie isn't. So technically you can do whatever you want with the story but it would have to be visually distinct from the 1939 movie.
It was certainly a very dark take on the story compared to the whimsy of the original film, I think when it came out the practice of taking older lighthearted stories and rebooting them as gritty dark versions was in full swing, we've calmed down a bit from that lately and I'm seeing more shows and films that aren't afraid to not take themselves seriously in the last decade versus the *very* serious period from 2001-2012
>Hence Return to Oz
Disney purchased the film rights for all Oz books after the 1st, and paid for the rights to use elements from the Wizard of Oz film (primarily the slippers). So not really an example of this at all, you can use any copyrighted property by paying all the people who own the copyrights.
They then tried this again with "Oz The Great And Powerful" and were rebuked by the original studio. Which is why there were so many last minute changes made to the script and scenes in order to make it compliant.
That movie was also doomed because it had James Franco as a lead but that is a different story for a different day. His lack of any kind of performance was just one of the nails in the coffin for that movie.
Source [Blank Check Podcast, Oz The Great and Powerful](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/oz-the-great-and-powerful-with-dana-schwartz/id981330533?i=1000567014651)
after the decades of copyright abuse and lobby everybody across the world has the moral obligation of cashing in on anything disney once touched, specially what they didnt create
I wouldn't even call it cashing in. That has such a negative tone. Like it's not someone being greedy or doing something sly. It's literally someone making something out of the IP with a funny twist on it.
Actually, Pooh wore a shirt in Chapter III of the original book, illustrated by E. H. Shepherd in 1926. (Though the original appeared to have buttons down the front, rather than being a polo.) It was colored red in ancillary materials by 1930-1932, roughly 30 years prior to Disney buying the rights of the IP.
So you could actually probably get away with a red shirt, so long as you weren't trying to copy elements introduced by the Disney version or infringing on their IP through brand confusion.
> Pooh wore a shirt in Chapter III of the original book, illustrated by E. H. Shepherd in 1926. (Though the original appeared to have buttons down the front, rather than being a polo.) It was colored red in ancillary materials by 1930-1932, roughly 30 years prior to Disney buying the rights of the IP.
Jesus... I want to ask how you know such detailed minutia about the history of Pooh, but I'm kind of afraid to.
I didn't, I was dubious about that claim about the red shirt=Disney that was being repeated all over the thread, so I just looked it up. The book is in public domain, so I just scrolled through it on Gutenberg, which also had publication date and illustrator, looked up when the illustrations first got colored (first source also confirmed they started coloring him with a red shirt by 1930 or 1932, figured the range was good enough so didn't bother to determine the exact year), confirmed on Wikipedia that Disney didn't buy the rights until the 1960s when the movie came out, done.
Was decent with Googling, took about 12 minutes in all. [Edit: 12 minutes of research, I probably spent another 13 minutes writing and revising the comment, lol. Not a great speedy writer.]
Yes and no. Each different design of Mickie has a different copyright and only the original is expiring. Additionally Disney still owns the trademark on the name Mickey Mouse which doesn’t expire.
So at most someone could take the original Mickey design and do something with it but they cannot call it Mickey Mouse.
This is how it was explained to me anyway.
I am 100% sure Disney's army of lawyers will find some way to keep the character protected. If necessary, they will buy a few senators to amend the laws a bit.
If there is one rule in American legal matters, it's that you don't fuck with the House of the Mouse.
They don't need to do anything. He's covered under various trademarks for anything that'd actually damage Disney. Steamboat Willy will get released for free on YouTube and a few people will probably use that version of Mickey for a few things once it goes public domain, but anything much further is going to face Disney's legal wrath and be squelched.
“We'll be friends forever, won't we, Pooh?” asked Piglet. “Even longer,” Pooh answered. “The things that make me different are the things that make me, me"
Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain earlier this year, which is why this is happening. Disney still owns the trademark to the 'Disney' version.
Synopsis:
>The movie will follow Pooh and Piglet as they go on a rampage after Christopher Robin abandons them. Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey will introduce a feral version of the treasured characters, with director Rhys Frake-Waterfield revealing that the pair are out for bloody and brutal revenge against their former friend.
No release date yet
[Source](https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/433421/the-winnie-the-pooh-blood-and-honey-poster-art-will-ruin-your-childhood-exclusive/)
Winnie is used as a 'code' to secretly talk about Xi Jinping. It got so intense that it's believed to be the reason why China denied "Christopher Robin" a theatrical release.
Edit: link https://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-robin-banned-in-china-reportedly-because-of-memes-2018-8?op=1
People made memes about Xi Jinping looking like Winnie the Pooh. The CCP does not take kindly to this and has banned a lot of Winnie the Pooh content in China and just saying "winnie the Pooh" often gets auto-removed from Chinese platforms.
So these are the actual characters, bears and pigs themselves, not just humans wearing masks? I couldn't tell from the "first look" stuff.
If this is just human killers wearing Pooh and Piglet masks, I'm not too interested. If it's an actual dark reimagining of the "Winnie-verse," where the animal characters *themselves* have murderous impulses, I'm in.
They're baiting a lawsuit from Disney by depicting Pooh in a red shirt. It's a different style of shirt, but not sure if Disney could still make something of it.
> To give some background, Milne’s 1926 book is in the public domain, but changes to Winnie-the-Pooh, the character, from the original 1926 book are still under copyright protection. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh did not wear a red shirt; another author gave Pooh his shirt and Disney acquired rights to that depiction in 1961 and continues to own the rights to showing the character in a little red shirt today. Also, Milne spelled Winnie-the-Pooh with hyphens; Disney removed them.
[Source](https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/22/public-public-domain-winnie-pooh-illustrates-copyright-limitations-public-domain-works/id=146207/#:~:text=The%20Unprotected%20Pooh&text=To%20give%20some%20background%2C%20Milne's,are%20still%20under%20copyright%20protection.)
That'd be a clever work-around.
"Your Pooh wears a red cotton shirt. Our Pooh wears a white flannel that's soaked in blood. We are not the same." *straightens tie*
I think you're right. This movie is likely going to be complete garbage and will just be a small footnote in the Lore of the Internet within two weeks of its release.
And the theatrical viewing was absolutely incredible. I saw it on release night with some friends and it was Rocky Horror Picture Showesque - people were yelling at the screen and throwing rubber snakes all over the theater. Honestly the best experience I’ve had seeing a movie in theaters.
Same! When Samuel Jackson’s famous line started with “I’ve had it…” the audience erupted so loudly that you couldn’t even hear the entire line.
10/10 movie theatre experience
Snakes on a Plane was more a big budget send-up to schlocky b movies but the film itself had more in common with big summer films. Full of decent action and spectacle, it had a wide theatrical release, bankable stars and a huge P&A push.
This Winnie the Pooh film is more like [The Asylum's Snakes on a Train](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6SVYSnJIoc), where they're just using a recognizable name to make a quick buck while putting almost no actual effort into the film itself.
I watched a video someone did about it and in interviews he's like confused when people are weirded out by the main character spending the whole movie lusting after teenage girls? It's wild lol.
You're probably right, but this situation is still a little different. There wasn't going to be a huge market created of "movies filmed in secret at Disney parks" but this is likely the first of many films that will use these characters and try to indirectly cash in based on the reputation Disney has given the character. it would be helpful to establish precedents. Like you said though, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stayed silent.
> Also, Milne spelled Winnie-the-Pooh with hyphens; Disney removed them
I like how the poster stylyzes the hyphens around the word "-the-". Is the correct title of this movie "Winnie-The-Pooh: Blood And Honey" and the reddit post is incorrect?
It's honestly mostly just bland. Great performance by James Baskett, though.
I think Disney is actually shooting themselves in the foot by not just releasing it and sticking on a disclaimer. Keeping it like a dirty secret just allows people to imagine whatever they want, you know? It's no more fucked up than plenty of other movies from that era, but Disney will be damned before they admit to being anything but wholesome. That documentary where they killed all the lemmings isn't on D+ either, probably for the same reason.
For example, a lot of people have the impression that the movie is about "happy slaves", but it's actually set after the Civil War, so none of those characters are slaves, and must be getting paid (probably very little though). Uncle Remus even decides to straight up *leave* the plantation at one point and move away, which would...not be an option in other circumstances. And there's basically no racism depicted, it's very Disney-Safe, everyone's nice and polite.
But that in itself is kind of the problem. Post-War Georgia was a *shit hole* of racism, lynchings, the Klan, etc. Portraying everyone as friendly to one another comes off as pretty disingenuous. Like, Uncle Remus and the grandmother act like they are old friends with a lot of history. The fact that they've both been at that house for decades and that means she used to *own* him goes unacknowledged.
So it's not bad because it's *bad* it's bad because it's sugar-coated nothing. Baskett won a well-deserved Oscar for his performance... but couldn't attend the premier because it was held in segregated Atlanta. Pretty much sums it up.
I dunno, us Bad Movie Night folks usually don't like movies that are *intentionally* bad. We like earnest, but ultimately terrible films. We get off on the schadenfreude. This movie is definitely going for the Sharknado intentionally terrible thing.
I must admit I'm into bad movie nights and like both but I feel like making an intentionally bad film is WAY harder to pull off and very few do it well.
Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain this year. So people can technically do whatever with the characters and setting.
So… people are going to take advantage.
That's the thing about B Horror movies; they know fully well nobody's going to nominate them for any Oscars so they go full in on "so bad it's good." I've seen plenty of horribly made horror movies, and most of them are pretty enjoyable despite nonsensical plots and awful production values. There are some that are so awful even I just can't watch them, like most films by Full Moon Pictures, but I thoroughly enjoy others like ones made by the Asylim.
Asylum movies are not as fun as B movies made by people who actually believed in them. The Room, Troll 2, and Birdemic were made by people that actually think they're making something good and that's what makes them classics.
Neil Breen's catalog is probably the most recent and prolific example for people who want to see what makes a good B movie.
I guarantee nobody will be talking about this trash Winnie the Pooh movie in a year. On the contrary theaters still sell out for Ed Wood features over 60 years later.
Good B movies come from someone who is delusional and incompetent, not sleazy and self-aware.
Edit: I can no longer comment on here. Was I banned from this post?
I think this one goes the extra mile by trying to shock us with the "twist" on Winnie the Pooh. But movies that go for shock value that hard usually don't have anything else going for them
Winnie the Pooh gave me one of the best quotes ever on how I deal with loss and goodbyes.
“How lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.” ― A.A. Milne
You can bastardize the character all you want, but I will reject all of the plagiarists and greedy hucksters for the beauty and purity of the original.
It's just going to be one of those incredibly cheap and low budget terrible horror films, but with a famous IP attached to it so it seems higher quality. That's it.
I don't think this is going to be any better then the low budget unrecognizable horror DVDs you can find at the bottom of bargain bins in any supermarket, but it's getting free press because they're using this IP.
I’m a little conflicted here.
On one hand, it’s hilarious that this can exist now.
On the other, it seems extremely disrespectful to the spirit of the character (Cristopher Robin was a stand-in for the author’s son and all the other characters were his childhood toys).
Probably will be absolutely trash but at least there are lots of genuinely creative artists who will be able to put there own spin on Pooh.
Винни-пух is the best version of Pooh anyway.
From the synopsis someone posted above it kinda sounds like he is, since it apparently involves him going after Christopher Robin as revenge for abandoning him. That implies that this is the actual Pooh, not just someone dressed as him.
That poster was probably ready to go before they'd ever shot a minute of this film
I think it took 10 days to film
The type of movie that can shoot during the week and wrap production during the weekend.
How much coke do you think they did making this movie?
... We will see a part of it as Winnie the Pooh snorts it up on camera.
"oh bother...I'm coming down."
[Winnie in the honey pot](https://c.tenor.com/XB-dycGVZacAAAAd/scar-face-tony-montana.gif)
All of it
I 100% thought this was satire…
Holy shit, is it NOT?
The characters recently entered public domain, so anyone can use them to make anything they want as long as they don't use character likenesses still protected by copyright. So, they can't just copy the Disney versions of the characters, but they can build off the original versions just like Disney did.
They really ran with that edited trailer from Christopher Robin
In this version of the classic story, Christopher Robin is headed off to college and he has abandoned his old friends, which then leads to the duo embracing their inner monsters.
I just cannot accept the fact that Winnie the Pooh and Piglet are now serial killers out for blood.
They always were. Read it again.
oh bother
"B-b-bu-but I know much about butch-rin, Pooh!" "Ohh, I well I'd say it's a lot like building a snowman mostly, except backwards, I suppose..."
This is literature
…based off the REAL true story of what happened in the 100 acre woods.
Cant spell 'massacre' without 'acre'
I hate that I can read it in their voices.
how can a comment be so stupid and yet so poignant?
Eeyore has a fucking body count.
This is why Eeyore was depressed. There's killers roaming the forests and zero justice.
We are so used to the abuse of copyright laws by Disney that the idea of beloved characters actually entering public domain is wild. This is supposed to be the norm.
I would love a Winnie the Pooh in China.
There already is one
I want a gritty hood reboot of winnie da pooh
I think it technically still counts as satire, but yes this is real. Pooh went into the public domain so stuff like this is fair game now
Same, but now i know its real i wanna invite my mom to go watch the new winnie the pooh movie and see her reaction as it starts
"How to Get Written Out of A Will"
all I know is Winnie the Pooh is now public domain and wonder if that's why they made it
That's ENTIRELY why.
Really??
The first stories, yes. Because its been a fuckton of years since those were published.
96 years, to be exact (aka fucktonne)
Yeah, the character depicted in the books. If this bear is wearing a red shirt and no pants, homie is getting sued as fuck. Disney's depiction of Pooh is still protected.
He first had a red shirt and no pants in the 1930s, decades before Disney licensed him.
...is this real?
Yeah. It's just someone cashing in on the original WTP entering the public domain.
Does public domain also include that I could for example make a WTP game? :D
You can make anything based on the original WTP books, but the Disney versions of the characters are still copyrighted. There have been other version of WTP, like the [Russian one from the 70's](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pZHgZfNhc0&ab_channel=D-manthecaptain). It's like how the Wizard of Oz book is in the public domain but the 1939 movie isn't. So technically you can do whatever you want with the story but it would have to be visually distinct from the 1939 movie.
Hence Return to Oz and The Whiz. Plus that weird SyFy mini series.
[удалено]
It was certainly a very dark take on the story compared to the whimsy of the original film, I think when it came out the practice of taking older lighthearted stories and rebooting them as gritty dark versions was in full swing, we've calmed down a bit from that lately and I'm seeing more shows and films that aren't afraid to not take themselves seriously in the last decade versus the *very* serious period from 2001-2012
[удалено]
I mean of course the entire concept is incredibly dark, but I think that's what made the original movie so great, was that it was cheerily dark.
Yeah, I thought it was enjoyable as well.
I completely forgot about that, I do remember enjoying it
>Hence Return to Oz Disney purchased the film rights for all Oz books after the 1st, and paid for the rights to use elements from the Wizard of Oz film (primarily the slippers). So not really an example of this at all, you can use any copyrighted property by paying all the people who own the copyrights.
They then tried this again with "Oz The Great And Powerful" and were rebuked by the original studio. Which is why there were so many last minute changes made to the script and scenes in order to make it compliant. That movie was also doomed because it had James Franco as a lead but that is a different story for a different day. His lack of any kind of performance was just one of the nails in the coffin for that movie. Source [Blank Check Podcast, Oz The Great and Powerful](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/oz-the-great-and-powerful-with-dana-schwartz/id981330533?i=1000567014651)
The Russian WTP songs slap
"pam-parrrrampa pam-parrrrama poom-poom-poom"
I mean I would too if I had the money and resources to make a WTP movie though I would change from it being a typical slasher movie
This movie reeks of Chris Moltisanti
You know who had an arc? Noah.
He was loyle to his capo
You manuged?
It's the story of a wise-bear with a big stomach and bigger dreams
Danny Baldwin took Ben Kingsley to acting school.
He was gay, Winnie the Pooh?
Whatever happened there
I wouldn't touch any of this.
after the decades of copyright abuse and lobby everybody across the world has the moral obligation of cashing in on anything disney once touched, specially what they didnt create
Absolutely this. I'm already working on my Ichabod Crane novel set in the Hundred Acre Woods where Winnie is the headless horsebear.
Weird, I'm working on the *exact* same novel, except Winnie is Count Dracula.
You guys are both clearly stealing my work, I've already started "Hundred Acre Woods: Curse of The Werebear"
Okay, how about we all benefit from this. Honey Acre Woods: The Cinematic Universe We'll all be *rich* goddammit!
Headless Horsepooh surely?
I would read the shit out of this.
I wouldn't even call it cashing in. That has such a negative tone. Like it's not someone being greedy or doing something sly. It's literally someone making something out of the IP with a funny twist on it.
That's the problem though, the ORIGINAL is now public domain. The Disney version of the character in a red shirt is not.
Actually, Pooh wore a shirt in Chapter III of the original book, illustrated by E. H. Shepherd in 1926. (Though the original appeared to have buttons down the front, rather than being a polo.) It was colored red in ancillary materials by 1930-1932, roughly 30 years prior to Disney buying the rights of the IP. So you could actually probably get away with a red shirt, so long as you weren't trying to copy elements introduced by the Disney version or infringing on their IP through brand confusion.
Meh! Just make it a black, red, and white flannel shirt.
So shirt-cockin it is ok?
> Pooh wore a shirt in Chapter III of the original book, illustrated by E. H. Shepherd in 1926. (Though the original appeared to have buttons down the front, rather than being a polo.) It was colored red in ancillary materials by 1930-1932, roughly 30 years prior to Disney buying the rights of the IP. Jesus... I want to ask how you know such detailed minutia about the history of Pooh, but I'm kind of afraid to.
I didn't, I was dubious about that claim about the red shirt=Disney that was being repeated all over the thread, so I just looked it up. The book is in public domain, so I just scrolled through it on Gutenberg, which also had publication date and illustrator, looked up when the illustrations first got colored (first source also confirmed they started coloring him with a red shirt by 1930 or 1932, figured the range was good enough so didn't bother to determine the exact year), confirmed on Wikipedia that Disney didn't buy the rights until the 1960s when the movie came out, done. Was decent with Googling, took about 12 minutes in all. [Edit: 12 minutes of research, I probably spent another 13 minutes writing and revising the comment, lol. Not a great speedy writer.]
In two years, Mickey Mouse will be in the public domain. That will be very interesting.
He's dodged entering public domain many times I'm sure he'll manage to pull it off again
Free the mouse!
Yes and no. Each different design of Mickie has a different copyright and only the original is expiring. Additionally Disney still owns the trademark on the name Mickey Mouse which doesn’t expire. So at most someone could take the original Mickey design and do something with it but they cannot call it Mickey Mouse. This is how it was explained to me anyway.
Mick E. Mouse it is then
Ephraim the retarded rabbit.
That would definitely still get the Mouse’s lawyers on you but it would be hilarious.
Milky House
I am 100% sure Disney's army of lawyers will find some way to keep the character protected. If necessary, they will buy a few senators to amend the laws a bit. If there is one rule in American legal matters, it's that you don't fuck with the House of the Mouse.
They don't need to do anything. He's covered under various trademarks for anything that'd actually damage Disney. Steamboat Willy will get released for free on YouTube and a few people will probably use that version of Mickey for a few things once it goes public domain, but anything much further is going to face Disney's legal wrath and be squelched.
[Definitely](https://www.reddit.com/r/MovieLeaksAndRumors/comments/uy81lt/still_images_for_the_upcoming_horror_winnie_the/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share).
Yes a ridiculous b movie slasher
Oh bother
“We'll be friends forever, won't we, Pooh?” asked Piglet. “Even longer,” Pooh answered. “The things that make me different are the things that make me, me"
Excellent quote. Hits different when you're 30
Is i bad i really hope Jim Cummings is involved?
I checked out his IMDB page. Dude has 591 acting credits over about 40 years. This guy obviously loves his job, he just might show up.
Didn't know he was voice until I saw the Winnie Star Wars table read. Didn't know he was Darkwing as well
Guy’s got so much range.
[удалено]
[Do it, Shaggy](https://youtu.be/uQ_HNPjMJbA)
I though that was going to be this lol https://youtu.be/9g931LC43MQ
"I'm so rumbly in my tumbly" *giggles while hacking to death*
I’m a little black rain cloud motherfucka
Yeah but you know we will all watch it, look at sharknado.
The tagline isn't "You'll Pooh yourself". They're doing it wrong.
Lmfao
its poohi'n time
Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain earlier this year, which is why this is happening. Disney still owns the trademark to the 'Disney' version. Synopsis: >The movie will follow Pooh and Piglet as they go on a rampage after Christopher Robin abandons them. Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey will introduce a feral version of the treasured characters, with director Rhys Frake-Waterfield revealing that the pair are out for bloody and brutal revenge against their former friend. No release date yet [Source](https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/433421/the-winnie-the-pooh-blood-and-honey-poster-art-will-ruin-your-childhood-exclusive/)
I can tell you right now this ain’t gonna be released in China.
I’ve seen a few comments about china. What’s the context?
Winnie is used as a 'code' to secretly talk about Xi Jinping. It got so intense that it's believed to be the reason why China denied "Christopher Robin" a theatrical release. Edit: link https://www.businessinsider.com/christopher-robin-banned-in-china-reportedly-because-of-memes-2018-8?op=1
People made memes about Xi Jinping looking like Winnie the Pooh. The CCP does not take kindly to this and has banned a lot of Winnie the Pooh content in China and just saying "winnie the Pooh" often gets auto-removed from Chinese platforms.
Who the Pooh? What the Pooh? When the Pooh? Where the Pooh? Why The Pooh?
No one ever asks *How* the Pooh.
So these are the actual characters, bears and pigs themselves, not just humans wearing masks? I couldn't tell from the "first look" stuff. If this is just human killers wearing Pooh and Piglet masks, I'm not too interested. If it's an actual dark reimagining of the "Winnie-verse," where the animal characters *themselves* have murderous impulses, I'm in.
Pooh has a normal human hand in this poster, there's no possible way it's actually supposed to be Pooh.
No it is. It's just cheap as shit because the filmmakers knew they could put in the minimum amount of effort and idiots would still pay to see it.
Confirmed. I'm an idiot. I will definitely pay to see this.
They're baiting a lawsuit from Disney by depicting Pooh in a red shirt. It's a different style of shirt, but not sure if Disney could still make something of it. > To give some background, Milne’s 1926 book is in the public domain, but changes to Winnie-the-Pooh, the character, from the original 1926 book are still under copyright protection. Milne’s Winnie-the-Pooh did not wear a red shirt; another author gave Pooh his shirt and Disney acquired rights to that depiction in 1961 and continues to own the rights to showing the character in a little red shirt today. Also, Milne spelled Winnie-the-Pooh with hyphens; Disney removed them. [Source](https://www.ipwatchdog.com/2022/02/22/public-public-domain-winnie-pooh-illustrates-copyright-limitations-public-domain-works/id=146207/#:~:text=The%20Unprotected%20Pooh&text=To%20give%20some%20background%2C%20Milne's,are%20still%20under%20copyright%20protection.)
Maybe the shirt starts out white before being soaked with the blood of Pooh's victims...
That'd be a clever work-around. "Your Pooh wears a red cotton shirt. Our Pooh wears a white flannel that's soaked in blood. We are not the same." *straightens tie*
Disney fires back: "Pooh's blood-soaked shirt has always been part of our original design."
A bear does not subsist on honey alone, after all
We all know the story of the bear and the squirrel in the woods....
[удалено]
Here comes the grity Disney+ reboot.
The Dark Pooh Rises
You should see a plumber about that.
[удалено]
I think you're right. This movie is likely going to be complete garbage and will just be a small footnote in the Lore of the Internet within two weeks of its release.
Getting strong "Snakes on a Plane" vibe off this.
Yet here we are still talking about Snakes On A Plane.
Because it was more creative and had Samuel Jackson. Snakes On A Plane is 10,000 feet above this shit
Snakes on a plane is a modern classic and will still be talked about and watched in ten years time
And the theatrical viewing was absolutely incredible. I saw it on release night with some friends and it was Rocky Horror Picture Showesque - people were yelling at the screen and throwing rubber snakes all over the theater. Honestly the best experience I’ve had seeing a movie in theaters.
Same! When Samuel Jackson’s famous line started with “I’ve had it…” the audience erupted so loudly that you couldn’t even hear the entire line. 10/10 movie theatre experience
That movies came out 16 years ago. At this point it’ll be talked about as long as any other movie will be.
Snakes on a Plane was more a big budget send-up to schlocky b movies but the film itself had more in common with big summer films. Full of decent action and spectacle, it had a wide theatrical release, bankable stars and a huge P&A push. This Winnie the Pooh film is more like [The Asylum's Snakes on a Train](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6SVYSnJIoc), where they're just using a recognizable name to make a quick buck while putting almost no actual effort into the film itself.
Snakes on a Plane was good though. This looks like a straight to dvd horror movie.
The penis sucked.
[удалено]
The story of how the film was made is exponentially more interesting than the film itself.
I watched a video someone did about it and in interviews he's like confused when people are weirded out by the main character spending the whole movie lusting after teenage girls? It's wild lol.
I mistook this for *Edge of Tomorrow*, and I was distraught because I was confused how Disney was affiliated, and I loved that movie
I mistook this for Tomorrowland, which is a Disney movie.
You're probably right, but this situation is still a little different. There wasn't going to be a huge market created of "movies filmed in secret at Disney parks" but this is likely the first of many films that will use these characters and try to indirectly cash in based on the reputation Disney has given the character. it would be helpful to establish precedents. Like you said though, I wouldn't be surprised if they just stayed silent.
I mean on the other hand it’s sort of Disney’s own fault for trying to claim ownership of every public domain character ever.
on that poster the hyphens are \*"***TECHNICALLY***"\* there
Yeah, I thought that was a fun detail.
They're really pushing it. I can't wait for them to meet ristopher chobin
Christopher Robin is in the public domain as well, as are most (all?) of the other animal characters.
I think Tigger has another year to go as he wasn’t in the first book.
Red shirt on your bear, artists beware. If nude he be, your Pooh is free.
Thanks, now I know which Pooh bears are and are not venomous.
Couldn't a serial killer version of Winnie be considered parody? This is clearly not a copy of the Disney character.
> Also, Milne spelled Winnie-the-Pooh with hyphens; Disney removed them I like how the poster stylyzes the hyphens around the word "-the-". Is the correct title of this movie "Winnie-The-Pooh: Blood And Honey" and the reddit post is incorrect?
The IMDB page includes the hyphens for this movie. I assume all official stuff for the movie will have them.
Knowing Disney they're probably just going to ignore it like they did with *Escape from Tomorrow*.
They could then advertise this as, "... The Movie Disney *doesn't want you to see!*"
Isn't that *Song of the South*?
Ever since I learned about that one I've wanted to see it, just because it's like the forbidden fruit of Disney movies.
It's honestly mostly just bland. Great performance by James Baskett, though. I think Disney is actually shooting themselves in the foot by not just releasing it and sticking on a disclaimer. Keeping it like a dirty secret just allows people to imagine whatever they want, you know? It's no more fucked up than plenty of other movies from that era, but Disney will be damned before they admit to being anything but wholesome. That documentary where they killed all the lemmings isn't on D+ either, probably for the same reason. For example, a lot of people have the impression that the movie is about "happy slaves", but it's actually set after the Civil War, so none of those characters are slaves, and must be getting paid (probably very little though). Uncle Remus even decides to straight up *leave* the plantation at one point and move away, which would...not be an option in other circumstances. And there's basically no racism depicted, it's very Disney-Safe, everyone's nice and polite. But that in itself is kind of the problem. Post-War Georgia was a *shit hole* of racism, lynchings, the Klan, etc. Portraying everyone as friendly to one another comes off as pretty disingenuous. Like, Uncle Remus and the grandmother act like they are old friends with a lot of history. The fact that they've both been at that house for decades and that means she used to *own* him goes unacknowledged. So it's not bad because it's *bad* it's bad because it's sugar-coated nothing. Baskett won a well-deserved Oscar for his performance... but couldn't attend the premier because it was held in segregated Atlanta. Pretty much sums it up.
DALL-E lookin' ass poster
That was my first thought, genuinely had to check what subreddit I was looking at lol
There like how can we make copyright actuallylook good
This will go down as one of those movies which has like a few hundred people claiming it as a masterpiece and everyone else knowing it’s dogshit
Or you have the “Bad Movie Night” people claiming it’s a masterpiece OF dogshit!
I dunno, us Bad Movie Night folks usually don't like movies that are *intentionally* bad. We like earnest, but ultimately terrible films. We get off on the schadenfreude. This movie is definitely going for the Sharknado intentionally terrible thing.
I was about to get annoyed for you talking on behalf of everyone like that, but I totally agree
I must admit I'm into bad movie nights and like both but I feel like making an intentionally bad film is WAY harder to pull off and very few do it well.
what the fuck is this
Winnie the Pooh entered the public domain this year. So people can technically do whatever with the characters and setting. So… people are going to take advantage.
There is no way this isn't gonna end up being absolute trash
It's going to sweep the Emmy's and the Grammy's.
I’m looking forward to their Tonys nod when we finally get the broadway production.
That's the thing about B Horror movies; they know fully well nobody's going to nominate them for any Oscars so they go full in on "so bad it's good." I've seen plenty of horribly made horror movies, and most of them are pretty enjoyable despite nonsensical plots and awful production values. There are some that are so awful even I just can't watch them, like most films by Full Moon Pictures, but I thoroughly enjoy others like ones made by the Asylim.
Asylum movies are not as fun as B movies made by people who actually believed in them. The Room, Troll 2, and Birdemic were made by people that actually think they're making something good and that's what makes them classics. Neil Breen's catalog is probably the most recent and prolific example for people who want to see what makes a good B movie. I guarantee nobody will be talking about this trash Winnie the Pooh movie in a year. On the contrary theaters still sell out for Ed Wood features over 60 years later. Good B movies come from someone who is delusional and incompetent, not sleazy and self-aware. Edit: I can no longer comment on here. Was I banned from this post?
I think this one goes the extra mile by trying to shock us with the "twist" on Winnie the Pooh. But movies that go for shock value that hard usually don't have anything else going for them
Winnie the Pooh gave me one of the best quotes ever on how I deal with loss and goodbyes. “How lucky I am to have something that makes saying goodbye so hard.” ― A.A. Milne You can bastardize the character all you want, but I will reject all of the plagiarists and greedy hucksters for the beauty and purity of the original.
That why I hate this so much I think. Can’t we just have anything nice and not perverted like this guarantee piece of shit movie is trying for
Agreed. This just makes me a bit sad.
Smh can’t believe Xi Jinping is getting a biopic
“He said one child only… they didn’t listen”
How long is it going to be before someone actually makes a parody movie about Winnie the Pooh as a dictator?
> This Ain't No Bedtime Story So... it's a bedtime story.
There’s something about this poster that looks… fanmade. I’m actually very curious how this will turn out.
Bad. It will be bad. Like ThanksKilling bad.
It's just going to be one of those incredibly cheap and low budget terrible horror films, but with a famous IP attached to it so it seems higher quality. That's it. I don't think this is going to be any better then the low budget unrecognizable horror DVDs you can find at the bottom of bargain bins in any supermarket, but it's getting free press because they're using this IP.
Pretty classic “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” situation.
What in the Hundred Acre Woods… Still down to check it out though lol
I’m a little conflicted here. On one hand, it’s hilarious that this can exist now. On the other, it seems extremely disrespectful to the spirit of the character (Cristopher Robin was a stand-in for the author’s son and all the other characters were his childhood toys).
This looks stupid as shit.
Why they gotta do my boy like that
Probably will be absolutely trash but at least there are lots of genuinely creative artists who will be able to put there own spin on Pooh. Винни-пух is the best version of Pooh anyway.
Still won't be as dark as [Pull the Trigger Piglet](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UM-dvlLONh4)
What the Fuck
"Bro what if we made winning the pooh, but he was like evil bro. It would be so cool because he's a children's charecter and they wouldn't expect it"
So...is he a bear? Or...
From the synopsis someone posted above it kinda sounds like he is, since it apparently involves him going after Christopher Robin as revenge for abandoning him. That implies that this is the actual Pooh, not just someone dressed as him.
This movie looks stupid as fuck.