Winnie The Pooh: Blood and Honey

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by LeotheLateBloomer

So wait, if the character is public domain, does this not include the Disney version?

No, Disney still owns the rights to their Pooh products until 95 years after publication. It is the original book that went public domain, meaning anything found in this book such as the characters and stories, are free for anyone to use. The first Pooh movie made Disney does indeed align pretty well with this book, so you can make a movie pretty similar to it if you wanted to, but you can't straight up copy the Disney version because it still deviates from the book in a few ways. Anything Disney has made that features new characters or stories not found in the book cannot be copied either, because they are not yet in the public domain. If you want to make an exact duplicate of the Disney version you'll have to wait until 2062 and that will only apply to the first short they made.

I think Tarzan is probably the best case to understand how a character relates to copyright and trademark after entering the public domain.
Tarzan the character entered the Public Domain in 2008 along with the first book.

• As of this post, all books featuring Tarzan up until Tarzan and the Ant Men is considered public domain (assuming 95 years after publication applies here, if it's lifetime+70 years then all Tarzan books written by ERB are public domain).
• Any book less than 95 years old (assuming the 95 year rule again) is still under the copyright protection of the ERB estate.
• While the character and many books are public domain, the ERB estate maintains a trademark on Tarzan. This means that if you want to make a movie titled "Tarzan" you'll still have to pay them. You can however still make a Tarzan movie and the character can still be called Tarzan in the movie, you just can't use the title.

[Allio]

Picked up the Winnie the pooh book collection. Gonna try my hand at a Winnie book. Can’t be that much harder to be better than that Christopher Robin film.

[Shark_Blade]

This is how it’s meant to be.

[Allio]

Makes me wonder if Winnie the Pooh will be added to the large group of fairytales, kind of like how Peter Pan, Oz and Alice are thrown in even though they aren’t really fairy tales.

[neatoman]

Originally Posted by Allio

Makes me wonder if Winnie the Pooh will be added to the large group of fairytales, kind of like how Peter Pan, Oz and Alice are thrown in even though they aren’t really fairy tales.

If you mean, "Will the public relate to Pooh in the same way as Peter Pan, Oz and Alice?" then yes.

[Allio]

Originally Posted by Leo656

It's less offensive than people who say "funnily enough".

Well to be fair the decision was made more based on the original book. Rabbit didn’t really have the most positive response when meeting Kanga and Roo.

[neatoman]

So when is this movie actually coming out?

[Allio]

Something I learned if you want use Winnie the Pooh. You have to use the Hyphen version of the name “Winnie-the-Pooh”

[Allio]

Just finished Winni the Pooh blood and honey

Honestly it has some nice ideas. I’m liked the drama between Christopher Robin and Pooh and the idea that the animals have thrown away their own humanity since the boy left and the idea that all of this killing stems from a trauma from when they had to eat Eyore to survive.

the Rest of the film is pretty generic.

[Coola Yagami]

Wait, it was actually about Pooh? I thought it was about some random serial killers running around wearing Winnie the Pooh character masks.

[Allio]

Nope they are indeed the actual characters. Though in this case they are some kind of mutants or something. Half human/animal creatures that Christoper Robin found as a kid and befriended despite their appearance.

Intro to the film, easily the best part.



Shows that there is indeed an interesting concept

[Coola Yagami]

Originally Posted by Allio

Nope they are indeed the actual characters. Though in this case they are some kind of mutants or something. Half human/animal creatures that Christopher Robin found as a kid and befriended despite their appearance.

Intro to the film, easily the best part.



Shows that there is indeed an interesting concept

oh god. And after reading a synopsis, the only killers are Pooh and Piglet. So I assume they also ate rabbit and owl.

[Allio]

I imagine that considering just how low quality that Piglet was, I just assume they didn’t have much more budget for Rabbit and Owl. Though maybe the sequel since it’s confirmed (the movie has so far made nearly 4 million on a 100,000 budget.)

[Allio]

And we got the sequel



We went for a 50k budget this time to 1 mill budget. They overhauled the designs and even piglet has a better design now. We also have Owl and Tigger

[Allio]

Well… that’s interesting. Blood and Honey 2 has started off good ratings wise

[neatoman]

Alright, I've seen the sequel and... I think I literally had the worst theater experience of my life. For whatever reason, the entire damn theater was full of teenagers who loudly exclaimed fake reactions, had conversations throughout the movie and literally took fucking selfies during the showing, with Flash photography no less! I get that it's a meme movie and not worth taking seriously and I might be able to handle one or two assholes who won't put down their phone, but what are the odds of being at a showing full of these drooling morons?

Anyway, yes. The movie sucks, it's not as bad as the first one but it's still really bad. There is also this weird thing in which they explain away the differences from the first one by claiming that one was just an in-universe movie based on what happened, but at the same time they also claim that movie was about Christopher Robin in a bear mask and footage of it on TV has him say the line "It's pawing time", which isn't really accurate at all. It's a really weird relationship between these movies. I know each Evil Dead movie is partially a remake of previous installments and that one of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies is set in the "real world", but the former was due to copyright problems and the latter was clearly meant to be a meta thing. This was just weird.

[LeotheLateBloomer]

Originally Posted by neatoman

Alright, I've seen the sequel and... I think I literally had the worst theater experience of my life. For whatever reason, the entire damn theater was full of teenagers who loudly exclaimed fake reactions, had conversations throughout the movie and literally took fucking selfies during the showing, with Flash photography no less! I get that it's a meme movie and not worth taking seriously and I might be able to handle one or two assholes who won't put down their phone, but what are the odds of being at a showing full of these drooling morons?

Anyway, yes. The movie sucks, it's not as bad as the first one but it's still really bad. There is also this weird thing in which they explain away the differences from the first one by claiming that one was just an in-universe movie based on what happened, but at the same time they also claim that movie was about Christopher Robin in a bear mask and footage of it on TV has him say the line "It's pawing time", which isn't really accurate at all. It's a really weird relationship between these movies. I know each Evil Dead movie is partially a remake of previous installments and that one of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies is set in the "real world", but the former was due to copyright problems and the latter was clearly meant to be a meta thing. This was just weird.

Another reason why I find teenagers annoying.

I just can't bring myself to watch these movies because they were made as shock value and every time a piece of family-friendly property (Disney's in this case) goes public domain, they chose the unoriginal horror route with no real passion.

[triplexxx]

How the hell do they get a classy actor like Simon Callow to participate in this abomination?