Film Theory: This is Disney’s WORST Fear! (Winnie the Pooh)

You never took a business class?

@@MaxRamos8 whaaat? unimaginable

Same lol I’ve actually learnt so much from his channels and well nothing from school 😭

@@acutedog9189 how so did you not even finish high school?

Thats your first problem

Disney is too harsh

I think,
A) that they DONT have to ask because it’s kids. Sick kids what kind of b#### takes away fun from kids?
B) who cares? Like I’ve said before ITS SICK KIDS
C) Disney has better things to do like making a new movie

@@lily-maielsley the people who make the movies don’t deal with copyright

disney is evil and deserves to get pirated from

@@lily-maielsley even tho now the movies are quite how do i say this

I'm curious if that will hold in court

@@sharktenko267 Don't think it matters really, the creators will just make a character with two big circle on each side of the head and call it Micky or Mickie.

@@taskdon769 micky the mousey ;-;

@@thuta9548 nicky the rat

​@@Zero-ve4ltRickey the Rodent

Making a sequel or remake does not extend the copyright to the original, it just creates a situation where the original is in the public domain, but the sequel/remake isn't so imitators can only use characters and elements from the original.

Most of the movies they are remaking have still quite a lot of time before they enter the public domain

They actually did that with Winnie the Pooh with Christopher Robin.

this is literally exactly why

wow that actually makes a lot of sense 🙎

It's rather smart if you think about it, nobody would recognise it unless they'd seen the original steamboat willie animation

Honestly, it seems kind of dumb to me. Like, seriously, _who cares_ if people can use a centuries old version of Mickey that most people aren't even familiar with? Like, they can't seriously be making a noticeable amount of money off of content that old, and the current version, which is _very_ different, will still be protected by copyright. So I really don't get why they even care that much.

@Mikayla Eckel Cifrese Because we're living in end stage capitalism. It's not just about winning; it's about crushing everyone else. Not only does Disney want to bleed the consumer base for every penny they can, they also want to make sure that no one else can earn a single thing. Yes, letting Steamboat Willie go would have a negligible impact on their year-end profits, but they didn't rise to the top of the industry by being nice.

@@Celestia282 end stage? elaborate

@@darthdogeyt3260 The final form of capitalism, where everything is controlled by capital

I cannot agree more, Disney is going to get crushed by Dreamwork's Kung Fu Panda!

​@@DontReadMyProfilePicture.6k

Agreed

@@masteroogway9525 totally

Is there another movie coming out I thought the story was over

Replace the buttons with a belt :D

​@@ErrorNamenotfound-mx7bv"Replace it with many belts" - Tetsuya Nomura

They never change Mickey's clothes? There was literally an era from where Mickey wore all kinds of clothes for nearly 50 years.

@RewindOGTeeHee what do you mean by that?

They should copy right strike it I wanna see it become canon

Why do people say it’ll become canon? It won’t.

@Jack Wrath wow youre def not a bot

*knock knock*
Grinch: You forgot me

Yeah

​​@@notinuse856 I'd say they're just calling you stupid in a creative way, since that wasn't MatPat's work. The film's existence is "even eviller" than Pooh ever should be. MatPat had nothing to do with it.

​@@notinuse856 Bruh this is an actual film.

id watch it

To be fair, I would totally watch a "teens trapped in an abandoned house with a guy in a mouse costume killing them off" slasher flick called "House-Of-The-Mouse" or something...

They did it’s South Park

@@117MasterSpartan mf what

Abandoned by Disney movie

Watching a simple theory?
Well jokes on you, you just learned how the copyright and trademarks work!

Eh, the mouse is trademarked, so Mickey will never really go into the public domain. The copyright on his steamboat willy design is entering the public domain but that is all. The character overall is trademarked and trademarks last forever so long as a company maintains them, and a horror movie would likely get challenged right off the bat since the *character* will always be Disney's.

Oh maybe we can get abandoned by Disney.

Nope remember the trade mark.

Have u seen the Roblox horror game Rickey Rat? It’s basically that and it’s like really well made at points u forget ur playing a block game. Highly suggest trying it out

Willy’s Steamboat Slaughterhouse

i wish every bot a shitty saturday

I hope that whoever is supposed to take over keeps the quality of these videos up

These bots are crazy 💀

@@sageviper2981 the person taking over is owning the company and such, matpat will still be in FULL control over making his videos and will have even more time in order to do so to make even better content (if the deal hasnt finished already)

@Jack Wrath We need to watch this

Absolutely. I mean, the dude can not only bounce, but he can bounce high.

@@ajward9112 I'd also love to see Owl swooping down like a ninja out of nowhere.

No

@@kawaiiamethist Oh yes - Owls are already naturally scary birds. That could be next level horrific

That would actually be beautiful

They did Moomins a while ago and it was amazing, check it out if you like them :)

Now all of a sudden, Winnie the Pooh becoming public domain doesn’t seem so bad.

There's a soviet animated Winnie the Pooh... It's a refreshing take on the old bear, feels just like a storybook.

I wanna do it now that sounds so cool

Making learning about boring laws fun is something I appreciate in someone.

Well now mickey is public 💀
Watching in January 2024

​@@AZGamezYTsame

@@sasukeuchiha9071 u came from the danno video?

​@@AZGamezYTI did

Tbh the original Bambi is pretty dark to begin with, so I wasn’t shocked

​@@juliajohnson4080 yeh

Literally the snl sketch

Bambi finally gets revenge

@@juliajohnson4080how I mean yea his mom got killed if in the first 10 minutes and he threw that one guy off a cliff in a fight but if anything it’s more realistic

So Mini will be the one to go on a killing spree after the decapitation of her beloved Mickey by a giant mouse trap! We'll call it:
Mini The Mouse, Cheese and Whine 😭

​@@scourgeofman4980 your thinking too small 50 shades of mini soon come

@@Pacbandit13
Nah, Nah, 50 Shades of Pete with Pete and Minnie in the starring roles.

Who's Pete?

​@@looneylunatic.2133 That's Mickey's arch nemesis he's the captain of the ship in Steamboat Willie

Link

@@Joxie_Jaxon its a book you cant get a link

I mean the original Peter pan is already horror enough (kidnaps children, kills lost boys who grow up, etc.)

​@@thegoldenfox951 it's like those Facebook things where kids are looking at a newspaper like "why won't the buttons work"

@@lopezroilans.8384 they did the peter pan story well in the tv show once upon a time

Weird. Grinch is pretty much the modern family friendly version of Krampus. So it wouldn't be much of a stretch to turn that into a horror movie. Someone just has to look into the creepier parts of Christmas lore. They can get all sorts of ideas. The Christmas Carol is really creepy since it is about ghosts.

Cindy You know whos that Made me laugh out loud

I also personally think that Hilda, ren and stimpy, Amphibia and who framed Roger rabbit could work as horror films.

And you CAN'T trademark or copyright a personality... I hope

@@mikethegoo i'm sorry, sir, but you cannot act like that anymore. your personality is now owned by the disney company

@@swift_heart_bunnie Goddammit!

@@mikethegoofirst time getting copyrighted huh?

Beap Boop I am Bot

i am a bot also

Has that peculiarly malevolent aura to it. Just like the company who created him. Walter probably looks from the spirit realm with frustration ever since at least the 80s.

Is your profile picture... traumacore?

You know Proxima, honestly? It'd be neat if the monster just responded by politely appreciating it and sending the original on his way.

@@starsiadraws Nah, They're literally just blind. I don't really have trauma.
Okay that was a lie, but still :)

Trademark* you said the wrong term.

@@mr_indie_fan correction taken 🫡

Ikr

dude there are links everywhere

He’s turned clothes into theory’s I bet he can turn doors into theory’s as well

And maybe he can turn chairs into theorys

@JackWrath3.. Imagine someone not knowing how to breath oxygen...😂🤣!! Get a better trap next Time!!!

There is a whole set of songs people would love for you to adapt. Look up copy-left. Also for examples of songs look up Pete Seeger, Faith Petric, Joe Hill or basically anything in a book called IWW's Little Red Songbook.

You are allowed to be creative. By making new characters.

@@herowither12354 and you should also be allowed to be creative with works that are getting older. and not have to wait like 150+ years to work with the characters, just because corporations are greedy.

@@r_puff I do think it does get a little much, I think it should be like, 100 years after publication, no matter when the creator dies. But also, besides that, I don't believe there is a single character that's over 100 years old that you cannot use.

​@@herowither12354 if jk Rowling dies sometime after 2038, there will be

@@herowither12354 100 years is a really long time

Grimm's tales, e.g.

I don't think so!

Yeah but film makers are lazy and often prefer a quick buck especially if they can use shock factor to get views.

Cool fun fact!

@@MrCreator-572 Thanks.

@@GOODYGOODGOOD789 Also, Stan Lee wanted to avoid confusion between the two characters, even though there is this comic book series literally called, and, this is the actual title, “New Super-Man.”..

I was surprised the budget was so small. They did a good job with the gore. The beginning was the best part and would make a better movie. Seeing the characters becoming insane from starvation.

Yeah now that if it's done right (which I doubt) can be an actual ok/good movie!

That TV show when they did with the fantasy characters, they made Peter Pan as a joker like antagonist. It was brilliant

Rhys Frake Waterfield will not use the Disney's Version, he would use the Paramount's version, 1911 or 1904 (The Paramount's version had enter in public domain in 2020, that version was published in Dec 29th 1924, before of new year 1925)

DUDE SAME

Me too man I'm terrified

I'm literally commando in my bed right now💀

me too man

Bro I started looking for cameras 😂😂😭😭 1:50

Google, for the longest time, was trying that same argument actually. They lost it though, Google is now a word equivalent in meaning to "search" It's also why you got the "why don't you Bing it?" ads for a while, as they were trying to push their name more into the public eye, whilst not losing it, as they could trademark the term because of the ads.

Yep. This is a real problem with corporate language. I can't remember the name of it, but it is a real process and something that erodes trademarks. I don't think they necessarily lose the trademark though. It just makes it harder to defend certain uses of it. This is sort of how Donkey Kong exists. Kong is just a term in Japan for a gorilla (that and Universal claimed the character was in public domain so they could use him).

He literally did cover that.
He literally went out of his way to cover the first point. With the copyright, he explicitly calls out that you can't use the from Winnie the Pooh, but you can have a generic kid, talking bear, pig and donkey having adventures in a forest.
With trademark, that's irrelevant, as the Superman logo and crest are both already trademarked, and would be renewed with everything else, and that's for things like when names of a specific product get accepted as general lexicon. For instance, the hoover vacuum is the basis for the phrase "hoovering" to become synonymous with vacuuming. The company can't go after you for using them interchangeably, but they can come after you if you try to make a vacuum named the "hoover vacuum".

@@deadersurvival4716 Generic kid, talking bear, etc. aren't the parts I was talking about. Those the ideas before being fleshed out. Mise-en-scene as I understand it is more that the parts that are too common within the fleshed out version. That's why I gave the example of superheroes having flight extremely often, as that would make a good case for a public domain version of Superman being able to get flight as well. It's not that flight is generic, it's that it's ubiquitous within the genre.
As for the trademark thing, trademark erosion isn't stopped by already having something trademarked, nor is the actual usage of the trademark irrelevant. Consider this: would DC really be able to stop an artist from showing an S on superman's shirt in the middle of a comic book if the reader has to buy the book to see it?

I suspect that the expression of those frames in that fashion as it forms a logo is where the trademark will stop. The frames themselves are all fair game, as would be any film that uses them. You just won't be able to reproduce Disney Animation's logo.

@@biggerdoofus Incorrect, because if they're common with the "fleshed out version" then you haven't really fleshed anything out. You're just taking advantage of basic expectations.
If something is still generic in it's topic (a superhero with flight or high tech machinery), then giving something in that topic the generic abilities is still just generic. Giving a superhero flight or high tech doesn't make it fleshed out, because, as you said, they're practically standard. And if it's standard and generic, you can't copyright it.
Correct, trademark erosion isn't stopped by having something already trademarked, but protecting something that you already have trademarked is excessively easier than trying to get a trademark. And yes, the actual usage is VERY relevant. On top of that, your actual question is also a "yes", and there's MANY evidences and examples that they not only can, but will, as that's happened with MANY knockoffs of Superman that already exist. There's a reason that all the knockoffs that exist don't use that symbol, and in a lot of cases, outright do whatever they can to rename the character, to put a different letter, and different design there.

That last point was huge recently because Google didn't want people to use 'google' to mean 'look something up', if it fully became meaning synonymous to that, it would not be possible for Google to keep their trademark on, well, google.

😢

How does that give you a status to say how weird this is, its not even weird? You just hear the name and what?

@Jack Wrath thank you for this, I couldn't breathe for 7 years until you gave me this video. You saved my life.

And DeSantis is making sure that happens 🤣

@@Labyrinth6000 Nope. Just changed the names. Disney is fine

@@BlueDauntless Fun Fact: the reason why Disney will not have a Tarzan remake is because Disney no longer owns the rights to Edgar Rice Burrough books series that the film is based on. It's now public domain.

Superior Man is a real version of Superman. Well, kinda.

Same lol

SAME

Same 😅

Well they SHOULDN'T, absolutely, but you know they're going to, they tried to sue a kindergarten for playing a Disney movie, they'll do anything to gain money.

Disney *can* sue.
Disney might win.
It *will* hurt.
The process is the punishment.

They sued a family wanting to use a spiderman gravestone for their kid because it would "ruin his image".

They can, because is essential part of their version of specific character

Innocent child, Disney is a powerful corporation, they would 100% do this

Pretty sure they did more than imply, I learned about scarlet fever from that movie.

I’ve never seen the movie but based on the name alone I would have guessed anthrax, BUT that wouldn’t work because it’s a bacterial infection, and you said it was a virus. interesting I have to watch this movie

-1000 social credit score

​@@davirpgamer1868 oh bother.

Like the NBA, I welcome the Chinese censors into my home and into our hearts.
I too love money more than freedom and democracy. Xi doesn't look just like Winnie the Pooh at all.
Long live the Great Communist Party of China! May this autumn's sorghum harvest be bountiful!

Im friends with Craig who plays winnie the pooh 😂 he's not even an actor, he's an engineer and martial arts instructor

It made 4.1 million (it took 100k to make) so it's pretty good

@@TylerTMG not a great film tho

And that’s why it exists!!!! It’s like Sharknado. Totally stupid, but people still want to watch it

@@phoenx8435 but it did pay fo itself

Mattpat just casually criticizes it but if its solid criticism fused with fun, its way better. Try the Marvel-Parody 'Some More News' does and maybe after that his more-serious video about Media-Mergers and Disney.

Literally did not reference anything about superman in that movie. It was slightly similar and had nothing to do with public domain genius

I have theory that James Gunn proposed Warner to make Ultraman movie (I mean, evil Superman from DC's Earth 2). They refused, so they make few changes and make it anyway. Then they hired him.

Definitely would've been better as a short film.

​@@rahbeeuh Yes I agree

The thumbnail terrified me

I'm glad it wasn't nighttime

Depends it would have to be based off the original Conan Doyle

Me, too! The art is incredibly high-quality and small independent artists deserve recognition. Welcome Home looks incredibly realistic and I can't wait to learn more about the world and lore behind it!

@@starsiadraws SAME! I really hope Clown meets their Ko-Fi goal!

No

I feel like it was made to connect with people who wished their childhood had more adult undertones for it to keep liking them forever throughout their entire lives without any phases where they’d feel too old for it

@@davidlance5310 or just people like me who still like Winnie the Pooh but are morbidly fascinated with the idea of a darker take on it, I remember me and my sister coming up with our own out-there ideas for Winnie the Pooh so i'm glad that film exists.

A friend of mine made a joke that this horror movie actually takes place in the Creepypasta multiverse and this evil Pooh is another byproduct of Zalgo.
Joke obviously, but wouldn't that be cool?

@@davidlance5310 Or hear me out, it was made for money.
It was trash.
And also some stuff should just be left alone! PERIOD!

@@FICUSULXD189 yeah well Saw was released to a negative reception with its first film & it’s now one of the biggest franchises ever. Whilst this was less slasher more grind-house & kinda chucked out anything worth a resolve, hope the sequel still happens & Tigger gets a good design