Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey

Dead2009

Horror Movie Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
https://www.dreadcentral.com/news/4...rror-film-reworks-a-childhood-classic-images/

A mysterious upcoming horror film titled Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey has appeared on our radar today, and we have questions. The very indie horror title is reportedly in post-production from writer/director Rhys Frake-Waterfield and stars Amber Doig-Thorne, Maria Taylor and Danielle Scott. According to the project’s IMDb page, the film is a grisly retelling of the Winnie the Pooh “legend”. Check out images from the film below.

Winnie-the-Pooh is a famous fictional anthropomorphic teddy bear written into existence by English literary legend A.A Milne alongside the famous illustrator E.H Shepard. The character first became famous back in 1926 with the picture book collection The House at Pooh Corner. Pooh would be turned into a household name in 1961 when Walt Disney Productions began making the character into a collection of films. Winnie the Pooh has gone on to become one of the worlds premiere children’s entertainment franchises.

Now the bear is back, and he’s got a brand new look. He also doesn’t seem to be up to any good, from what we can tell in these official stills from Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey. While not much is known about this forthcoming horror film, the images are giving off a very indie You’re Next energy, from the barnyard animal masks, to a message in blood smeared across windows.
 

Mysterian

Foolish Mortal
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Reminds me of the Banana Splits horror film, same type of premise. I just checked an IGN article... "Other characters include “Caged Man” and “Mauled Woman” , who can forget those cuddly friends!?

Interestingly, turns out A.A. Milne's book is now public domain, which is how the filmmakers were able to do this.

Speaking of horror versions of famous children's characters, as well as copyrights, one of Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentleman stories features Harry Potter and Mary Poppins, only Moore danced around using their actual names. Potter is the anti-Christ in the story, and Poppins is God, or some personification of God. (League stories involve famous literary characters, many of which are public domain so they can freely appear.) Here's Potter, unrecognizable as a multi-eyed giant, who tries to take out Poppins with fire vomit:

DBu12S4UAAAtbZa.jpg

Should add that as many Disney animated films are cheerier than the tales their based on, Poppins in the books is typically grumpy and bitter.
 

goofytinkerbell

Tinkerbell
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Before Disney got ahold of most of the fairy tales they use, a vast majority of them were VERY dark. Go back and read the original story of Cinderella, for example. I'm not sure why people are so against a horror movie based on these characters. It's not as if anyone will get them confused with Disney's version.

Copywrite was initially intended to protect the creator and their family so they could make money off their art, then allow it to go into the public domain to encourage creativity. Don't get me wrong, I love Disney... but there's a reason they call the copywrite extension the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. It's because the company got greedy, and is afraid allowing Mickey into the public domain will hurt their bottom line. It's not likely though, as the Disney-version of everything is still protected. Since Pooh is now public domain, anyone could write new stories based on the original characters or reimagine his look. They can NOT blatantly copy the Disney version. Even putting a red t-shirt on the new version is asking for trouble.
 

Mysterian

Foolish Mortal
Joined
Aug 2, 2020
Before Disney got ahold of most of the fairy tales they use, a vast majority of them were VERY dark. Go back and read the original story of Cinderella, for example. I'm not sure why people are so against a horror movie based on these characters. It's not as if anyone will get them confused with Disney's version.

Copywrite was initially intended to protect the creator and their family so they could make money off their art, then allow it to go into the public domain to encourage creativity. Don't get me wrong, I love Disney... but there's a reason they call the copywrite extension the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. It's because the company got greedy, and is afraid allowing Mickey into the public domain will hurt their bottom line. It's not likely though, as the Disney-version of everything is still protected. Since Pooh is now public domain, anyone could write new stories based on the original characters or reimagine his look. They can NOT blatantly copy the Disney version. Even putting a red t-shirt on the new version is asking for trouble.
Yes, the original Pooh book is public domain, not the Disney version.
Snow White has had films outside of Disney too, since that story is also public domain.

This same applies to Universal and public domain novels like Frankenstein and Dracula. Universal owns their own version of the costumes/makeup (though the actor likenesses are owned by the actors’ estates.). This was a sticking point when Hammer did their own monster films, they had to avoid copying Universal.

Therefore, since Universal has done the Huntsman (Snow White) films, Disney could easily do their own Frankenstein or Dracula without stepping on Universal’s toes. And they could even legally do a pastiche of Snow White vs Dracula if they so wanted. Neil Gaiman actually wrote a vampiric version of Snow White, as a matter of fact.
 

goofytinkerbell

Tinkerbell
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
Yes, the original Pooh book is public domain, not the Disney version.
Snow White has had films outside of Disney too, since that story is also public domain.

This same applies to Universal and public domain novels like Frankenstein and Dracula. Universal owns their own version of the costumes/makeup (though the actor likenesses are owned by the actors’ estates.). This was a sticking point when Hammer did their own monster films, they had to avoid copying Universal.

Therefore, since Universal has done the Huntsman (Snow White) films, Disney could easily do their own Frankenstein or Dracula without stepping on Universal’s toes. And they could even legally do a pastiche of Snow White vs Dracula if they so wanted. Neil Gaiman actually wrote a vampiric version of Snow White, as a matter of fact.
Nailed it! I think it's a good thing that artistic works aren't "owned" until the end of time. I have no problem with protection so the creators can make money off their works, and their kids can make money off of them, but I hate the idea that IP is restricted until the end of time.
 

Arym

Earning My Ears
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Nailed it! I think it's a good thing that artistic works aren't "owned" until the end of time. I have no problem with protection so the creators can make money off their works, and their kids can make money off of them, but I hate the idea that IP is restricted until the end of time.
I interested in why you think IP shouldn't be restricted for the foreseeable future. I don't mean to argue with you; I'm genuinely curious why people feel this way. I think that Mickey Mouse should be protected for as long as he is being "used" and for a long period after that. I think it was way too soon for A. A. Milne's Pooh to be put in the public domain.
Before Disney got ahold of most of the fairy tales they use, a vast majority of them were VERY dark. Go back and read the original story of Cinderella, for example. I'm not sure why people are so against a horror movie based on these characters. It's not as if anyone will get them confused with Disney's version.

Copywrite was initially intended to protect the creator and their family so they could make money off their art, then allow it to go into the public domain to encourage creativity. Don't get me wrong, I love Disney... but there's a reason they call the copywrite extension the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. It's because the company got greedy, and is afraid allowing Mickey into the public domain will hurt their bottom line. It's not likely though, as the Disney-version of everything is still protected. Since Pooh is now public domain, anyone could write new stories based on the original characters or reimagine his look. They can NOT blatantly copy the Disney version. Even putting a red t-shirt on the new version is asking for trouble.
Of course there is a money aspect, but Mickey in the public domain will hurt Disney's image. As long as Disney is using Mickey, I think he should be kept as all theirs. No one has a right to him.
 

goofytinkerbell

Tinkerbell
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
I interested in why you think IP shouldn't be restricted for the foreseeable future. I don't mean to argue with you; I'm genuinely curious why people feel this way. I think that Mickey Mouse should be protected for as long as he is being "used" and for a long period after that. I think it was way too soon for A. A. Milne's Pooh to be put in the public domain.

Of course there is a money aspect, but Mickey in the public domain will hurt Disney's image. As long as Disney is using Mickey, I think he should be kept as all theirs. No one has a right to him.
Copywrite laws stifle creativity. You can look it up, there's all kinds of info out there. And Mickey would still have a trademark, like Disney's version of Pooh, so it would still be protected. Right now you can't even make a story about a mouse that could any way be argued to be similar to Mickey, even if it's 90% different.
 

AndreaA

DIS Veteran
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Copywrite laws stifle creativity. You can look it up, there's all kinds of info out there. And Mickey would still have a trademark, like Disney's version of Pooh, so it would still be protected. Right now you can't even make a story about a mouse that could any way be argued to be similar to Mickey, even if it's 90% different.

I totally disagree. The continual “going back to the well” is what stifles creativity. This Pooh horror movie would not exist if it wasn’t riding the coat tails of the original AND Disney versions. Why didn’t they make up their own story? It could even have involved a guy’s childhood stuffed animals. I doubt it would have gotten so much free publicity though. I also disagree that no one can write about a mouse (for example). There are hundreds, if not thousands, of stories out there about anthropomorphic mice and Disney hasn’t stopped that.
 

Dead2009

Horror Movie Guru
Joined
Nov 30, 2019
I totally disagree. The continual “going back to the well” is what stifles creativity. This Pooh horror movie would not exist if it wasn’t riding the coat tails of the original AND Disney versions. Why didn’t they make up their own story?

If it's in the public domain, how in the world is it riding the coat tails of Disney? Wasnt Disney's stories to begin with.
 

Karin1984

DIS Veteran
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
There are plenty of weird adaptations of stories. Pride & Prejudice & Zombies for one.

There is a market for almost every crossover.
 

goofytinkerbell

Tinkerbell
Joined
Jul 5, 2009
I totally disagree. The continual “going back to the well” is what stifles creativity. This Pooh horror movie would not exist if it wasn’t riding the coat tails of the original AND Disney versions. Why didn’t they make up their own story? It could even have involved a guy’s childhood stuffed animals. I doubt it would have gotten so much free publicity though. I also disagree that no one can write about a mouse (for example). There are hundreds, if not thousands, of stories out there about anthropomorphic mice and Disney hasn’t stopped that.
Agree to disagree.

"Going back to the well" is exactly what Disney did. 90% (random number, not a real stat) of Disney IP was created by someone else. Just Google "Alice in Wonderland", "Winnie The Pooh", "Snow White", etc and you'll see that none of them are Disney creations but instead are reimagined versions or the originals. If the copywrite laws back then were what they were now, we wouldn't have any of the Disney versions. For them to go back now and say they must "protect the mouse" is more than a little hypocritical.
 








Top