|
Post by darkpast on May 26, 2022 6:15:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 26, 2022 11:24:26 GMT
Is this anything?
|
|
|
Post by Catman on May 26, 2022 11:29:51 GMT
Catman always suspected that 'bear of no brain' bit hid a darker truth.
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on May 26, 2022 12:49:24 GMT
It’s a horror movie with Winnie the Pooh and piglet as serial killers.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 26, 2022 12:53:44 GMT
It’s a horror movie with Winnie the Pooh and piglet as serial killers. Sounds (and looks) dumb, but maybe it'll be funny. Hope these people have good lawyers. Disney doesn't fuck around with this kind of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Catman on May 26, 2022 12:55:34 GMT
Who needs lawyers when the characters are now in the public domain?
|
|
|
Post by Penn Guinn on May 26, 2022 13:16:56 GMT
Made with the same mindset that think Calvin peeing on the Ford or Chevy Logo and a pregnant Lucy saying Damn You Charlie Brown are funny and those awful mean spirited parodies of Mr Rogers.
NOTHING fun and innocent can be allowed to stay innocent.
It's why we can no longer have anything nice.
"You have no sense of humor" in 3....2...1 <shrug>
|
|
|
Post by James on May 26, 2022 13:38:05 GMT
Uhh... I mean if they could do it with the Banana Splits, why not right?
|
|
|
Post by theravenking on May 26, 2022 14:22:47 GMT
Something tells me this will be awful. And not even comically awful.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 26, 2022 14:34:19 GMT
Who needs lawyers when the characters are now in the public domain? Are they? I guess they must be if this exists, but Disney made that Christopher Robin movie only a few years ago, and usually that allows them to reserve the rights for another length of time. I know IP law has had some big developments in the last few years, but I thought that still held.
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on May 26, 2022 14:38:52 GMT
Uhh... I mean if they could do it with the Banana Splits, why not right? Sure, but now I’m waiting on a horror version of Barney.
|
|
|
Post by James on May 26, 2022 15:12:41 GMT
Uhh... I mean if they could do it with the Banana Splits, why not right? Sure, but now I’m waiting on a horror version of Barney. Not until we get one of Sesame Street or the Muppets.
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on May 26, 2022 15:27:32 GMT
Uhh... I mean if they could do it with the Banana Splits, why not right? Exactly what I was going to say. I saw the Banana Splits movie for the October Challenge, and it turned out surprisingly good. I refer to it as Westworld meets Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, but on a splatter scale.
|
|
|
Post by James on May 26, 2022 16:51:37 GMT
Uhh... I mean if they could do it with the Banana Splits, why not right? Exactly what I was going to say. I saw the Banana Splits movie for the October Challenge, and it turned out surprisingly good. I refer to it as Westworld meets Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, but on a splatter scale. I still haven't watched it. Could go either way, though I'd be more surprised if it didn't suck.
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on May 26, 2022 18:56:53 GMT
Uhh... I mean if they could do it with the Banana Splits, why not right? Exactly what I was going to say. I saw the Banana Splits movie for the October Challenge, and it turned out surprisingly good. I refer to it as Westworld meets Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, but on a splatter scale. Was it pretty much the same movie as Willy's Wonderland?
|
|
|
Post by Captain Spencer on May 26, 2022 19:08:38 GMT
Exactly what I was going to say. I saw the Banana Splits movie for the October Challenge, and it turned out surprisingly good. I refer to it as Westworld meets Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, but on a splatter scale. Was it pretty much the same movie as Willy's Wonderland? I had to look up Willy's Wonderland to see what you were talking about, lol! After reading up on it yeah it's kind of similar, only the Banana Splits is set in a television studio. And like Willy Wonka, we have these groups of families taking a guided tour of the studio and some of the kids are spoiled brats.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jul 17, 2022 17:44:05 GMT
|
|
|
Post by James on Jul 17, 2022 17:50:18 GMT
That cover looks like something Wild Eye or The Asylum would produce.
|
|
|
Post by Vits on Jan 9, 2024 20:23:45 GMT
There are movies where a certain concept or joke is repeated rather than developed, to the point where you can watch just one scene and feel like it's enough. WINNIE-THE-POOH: BLOOD AND HONEY is the rare case where you don't even have to watch the movie. That mixture of surprise and laughter caused by the idea of turning the beloved characters created by A.A. Milne into serial killers is something you can experience just by reading/listening to the premise. I would argue that watching the movie ruins it, because it’s supposed to be about the contrast between how cute the characters were and how evil they are now. That can’t happen if the audience isn’t constantly aware that the villains on the screen are the title character and his friend Piglet. I don’t think I would’ve guessed if I saw a photo of them out of context. They look more like a mouse and a boar. Speaking of, did you think that the characters were two guys in disguise (just like the actors)? Nope. In-universe, those are supposed to be their real heads, with no explanation as to why their faces look frozen most of the time or as to why it never crosses the humans’ minds that these are masks (especially considering that their hands look normal). By the standards of a production with such a low budget, the cinematography is quite decent, at least in certain scenes. Unfortunately, those shots and those camera movements can’t overcome the generic plot, the boring characters, the laughable dialogue and the abrupt ending. It all amounts to lame torture porn. Without getting into spoilers, there’s a scene where a woman tells her friends a story in which she woke up in the middle of the night and she saw a man who had broken into her house just as he was trying to undress her. The music score suggests that the viewer should feel creeped out, but the pacing and the way it’s filmed feels fetishistic. Am I looking too much into it? You can’t blame me, since it’s not the only instance where something… Hmmm… Questionable happens. You see, there’s another scene where Pooh grabs a woman, he rips her shirt off and he immediately kills her. What was the point of the nudity (she wasn't wearing a bra) in this context if he wasn't going to try to rape her? 1/10 Disney made that Christopher Robin movie only a few years ago, and usually that allows them to reserve the rights for another length of time. I know IP law has had some big developments in the last few years, but I thought that still held. The Disney versions of the characters are protected by copyright laws, but the book versions aren't. now I’m waiting on a horror version of Barney. Wasn't Daniel Kaluuya working on one?
|
|
|
Post by masterofallgoons on Jan 9, 2024 20:56:07 GMT
There are movies where a certain concept or joke is repeated rather than developed, to the point where you can watch just one scene and feel like it's enough. WINNIE-THE-POOH: BLOOD AND HONEY is the rare case where you don't even have to watch the movie. That mixture of surprise and laughter caused by the idea of turning the beloved characters created by A.A. Milne into serial killers is something you can experience just by reading/listening to the premise. I would argue that watching the movie ruins it, because it’s supposed to be about the contrast between how cute the characters were and how evil they are now. That can’t happen if the audience isn’t constantly aware that the villains on the screen are the title character and his friend Piglet. I don’t think I would’ve guessed if I saw a photo of them out of context. They look more like a mouse and a boar. Speaking of, did you think that the characters were two guys in disguise (just like the actors)? Nope. In-universe, those are supposed to be their real heads, with no explanation as to why their faces look frozen most of the time or as to why it never crosses the humans’ minds that these are masks (especially considering that their hands look normal). By the standards of a production with such a low budget, the cinematography is quite decent, at least in certain scenes. Unfortunately, those shots and those camera movements can’t overcome the generic plot, the boring characters, the laughable dialogue and the abrupt ending. It all amounts to lame torture porn. Without getting into spoilers, there’s a scene where a woman tells her friends a story in which she woke up in the middle of the night and she saw a man who had broken into her house just as he was trying to undress her. The music score suggests that the viewer should feel creeped out, but the pacing and the way it’s filmed feels fetishistic. Am I looking too much into it? You can’t blame me, since it’s not the only instance where something… Hmmm… Questionable happens. You see, there’s another scene where Pooh grabs a woman, he rips her shirt off and he immediately kills her. What was the point of the nudity (she wasn't wearing a bra) in this context if he wasn't going to try to rape her? 1/10 Disney made that Christopher Robin movie only a few years ago, and usually that allows them to reserve the rights for another length of time. I know IP law has had some big developments in the last few years, but I thought that still held. The Disney versions of the characters are protected by copyright laws, but the book versions aren't. now I’m waiting on a horror version of Barney. Wasn't Daniel Kaluuya working on one? Yeah, we've all learned a bit about copyrights falling into the public domain since this movie was announced. Everyone is obviously super excited for the 37 upcoming Mickey Mouse horror movies.
|
|