Winnie the Who?

“…Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh, fuzzy little buddy all stuffed with fluff. He’s Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh, and now he’s in the public domain…”

Oh, you thought I was referring to the Disney character? *Starts laughing maniacally*

In fairness, I can see that. But while Milne’s classic character’s now public domain, thanks to his copyright expiring, the Disney iteration isn’t. You can do whatever you please with him…provided he’s not wearing a red shirt and voiced by Jim Cummings. And people are taking advantage of that, with the sky being the limit. One example even involves slasher horror and-wait, what?!

I’m starting to regret this. It was recently announced that such a movie was in the works. Despite being really bizarre, especially given the IP, this could be funny in the right hands. Maybe if Sam Raimi or John Carpenter were involved, we’d see something interesting. Maybe we’d even get a subversive masterpiece about how the world fell in-love with an apex predator.

Unfortunately, that’s not what this is. While little’s known at the moment, since it recently finished production, the director of Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, Rhys Waterfield, stated in a Variety interview that:

“…Christopher Robin is pulled away from them, and he’s not [given] them food, it’s made Pooh and Piglet’s life quite difficult. Because they’ve had to fend for themselves so much, they’ve essentially become feral…they’ve gone back to their animal roots…they’re like a vicious bear and pig who want to go around and try and find prey.”

I wish I could make up something like this, and I make stuff up all the time! But while “tamed animal goes feral” could work theoretically, there are two issues at play. The first is that it feels tone-deaf considering the number of mass shootings in The US. And since the media keeps downplaying and reframing the shooters as “misunderstood victims”, this is in really bad taste. Especially since “neglected and misunderstood” were words used to write-off Columbine in 1999.

The second issue comes from one of the released stills. In it, Pooh and Piglet creep up on a young woman swimming in a jacuzzi, complete with no cares. The implication is that they’re about to kidnap and eat her, not unlike Jaws. Except that unlike Jaws, where the shark was simply behaving like an animal, here the monsters are anthropomorphic. They have agency, which makes this unnecessarily creepy. I’m unsure what Waterfield was going for...

It’s too late to rewind time. But while a slasher film about “misunderstood” monsters based on a cuddly children’s IP is depressing as is, it speaks to a bigger issue: dark and gritty reboots of children’s properties. This has been covered before by people with a better understanding of film, but the idea that something can’t be taken seriously if it isn’t mature is insulting. What’s wrong with light and fun? Pixar and Disney movies are usually light and fun, and they’re excellent! They’re also appropriate for all ages! In some ways, that’s preferable to dark and edgy!

It bugs me that light and fun isn’t taken as seriously as dark and edgy, the latter of which only transcends taboos for shock value. The Michael Bay Transformers movies featured substance abuse, profanity and gratuitous nudity and violence, despite being based on a toy line for young boys. Michael Bay’s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles-produced duology was the same. And let’s not forget that Battleship, a movie based on a game, was a war film. It’s as if the people behind these movies were ashamed of the material.

Besides, what’s wrong with a little fun? There’s a reason A.A. Milne wrote these books for children: he was a war vet suffering from PTSD. By centring the books around a bear and making him a cuddly plushie who talks, Milne disguised his trauma and lost innocence in lighthearted stories about growing up and his own childhood. Even when adaptations of his book featured “grown up material”, like that live-action Disney film, they leaned into that lost innocence. In other words, less carnage and abductions, more lighthearted allegories about lost youth!

If it sounds like I’m being harsh…I am, but only because I don’t think Waterfield understands Winnie the Pooh as a character. I could be wrong, as dark re-imaginings of kid’s properties, like Chip ‘n Dale: Rescue Rangers, have proven successful when those involved actually cared. For all we know, Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey could end up a hidden gem, one equal parts clever as gory and weird! But that’s doubtful right now.

Also, if we’re talking “Winnie the Pooh gone savage”, Robot Chicken already pulled that off in less than a minute. So I’ll end with a quote from the late-Roger Ebert on the Godzilla Criterion Collection that sums up my thoughts:

“…Watching them again, reminded me of the spectacle that I enjoyed as a kid, and that’s what I really associate this series of films with: enjoyment. Yes, they’re often incredibly poorly made—watching them with kids born in the ‘10s was a fun experiment given how much kids were SO confused at what they were looking at—but that’s part of the joy. They’re goofy, fun, and over-the-top in ways that overly calculated blockbusters feels like they can’t be anymore.”

Sometimes, even when poorly-made, “silly and fun” is more enjoyable than “dark and edgy”. And if being public domain means we have to endure more of the latter, then so help me!