Talk:Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey

Created article

I'm aware that this would almost certainly not pass notability guidelines at this point in time, since the coverage is pretty much just a flurry of coverage from the same point in time. I wanted to get something started so that if this does gain the additional coverage needed, it can be restored and fleshed out from there. In the meantime this should just continue to redirect to the main article on the character, specifically the copyright related section. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:58, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

@ReaderofthePack, I should have looked here first. I saw a redirect, created over it, and then thought "Huh? There's a live talk page already?" I didn't even look in the redirect history given the announcement of the film was just yesterday and I assumed any history would be redirect targets. Sorry if I stepped on any toes! --Kbabej (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

• Nah, no worries! I don't mind - the page looks good! I'm still a little concerned that someone may try and nominate it, but if that happens we can always just restore the redirect (or lobby for it if it goes to AfD before more coverage comes out). ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:37, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

  Very true! I also realized there are literally hundreds of films in the upcoming films category. —Kbabej (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

• There are - honestly I always feel a bit bad for the upcoming films that get nominated for AfD. It's getting a lot more difficult to argue for NFF nowadays. TBH, if not for how that's been I'd have been more confident about the coverage thus far.

On a related note, have you checked out WP:HORROR? We can always use new, fresh blood, pun intended. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

I feel bad for saying I didn’t even know that was a project! How did I not know that? I’m totally interested! —Kbabej (talk) 04:06, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Article updates

Hello User:ErnestoCabral2018! You made some edits to the article that don't make a lot of sense to me, and rather than getting into an edit war I wanted to bring it up here. I'll sort them into subsections below.

CNN attribution

I had added the CNN source to the lead, with the text "CNN reported the announcement of the film on May 26, 2022 sent "horror fans buzzing"." The purpose of adding that was to convey the excitement surrounding the film. You used the same source and changed the text to "On May 26, 2022, CNN reported the announcement of a Winnie-the-Pooh-based horror film adaptation." That isn't entirely accurate, though, as the way you've written it implies CNN was the first one to announce the film. In fact, if you looked at the sources used on the page, the timestamps of the articles show the Variety source was posted hours before the CNN one (6:31am ET for Variety, 11:34am ET for CNN). And MustShareNews actually stated IGN was specifically the one to break the news to begin with, though that source doesn't currently appear on the page ("IGN first announced news of the indie horror flick via Twitter on Thursday (26 May).") Is there a reason you've attributed the announcement to CNN rather than IGN?

Cast

I had originally added the cast list, which were all attributable to one source (We Got This Covered). You updated the cast list from all listed in bullet points to seven cast members in bullet points and then two cast members in prose. I haven't seen a cast list like that on WP before. And with your change, it looks as if there isn't attribution for the first seven cast members. WP:FILMCAST refers to MOS:LISTFORMAT (which makes sense, as the cast are presented on this page in a list), which states, "List items should be formatted consistently in a list." Is there a reason why you made the list inconsistent?

Interested in hearing your thoughts! Thank you! --Kbabej (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello User:ErnestoCabral2018. Given you have edited the article since I pinged you in the conversation above, I'm going to assume you don't have any objections to me implementing the changes I've suggested. --Kbabej (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Image removed

Removed 1926 image of Pooh, as has nothing soever to do with this movie. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello @David notMD. I don't necessarily agree. The film's eponymous character is an update to the original Winnie-the-Pooh created by A. A. Milne. I think the inclusion of the image makes sense describing the background and history of the character that has been updated. --Kbabej (talk) 15:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Given that in Blood and Honey, Pooh is a human in a costume, an illustration from the original does not connect. There is a Wikilink to Winnie-the-Pooh (book). David notMD (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi @David notMD. If you read the article, the character is Pooh the bear, not a human wearing a Pooh costume. It’s the same character. —-Kbabej (talk) 19:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• The character of Pooh is meant to be a bear. Yes, the actor is a human in a bear costume. However the director has stated that the film is a continuation of the original book and has never made any indication that the character is meant to be seen as a human.

To also add on to this, the book itself is discussed in the article as it falling into the public domain was the primary impetus for the film's creation. The illustrations are a part of that book and also fell into the public domain. Another reason for the illustration to be included is that the director had to think up ways for Pooh to resemble the book character (within budgetary constraints) while also avoiding anything that was Disney exclusive - for example, the red shirt, which is a Disney addition.

Ergo, the image should be in the article because the book is discussed and because the way the original drawings were styled were important to the end design result. Their budget and other limitations hampered what they could take, but you can see where they tried to make the mask look as similar as possible while also being "scary". ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I would, however, recommend changing the caption to something like "While designing the final look for Pooh, Frake-Waterfield had to avoid any Pooh's red shirt, and any other elements from Disney's depictions that could pose a copyright issue.", so that it's more clear as to why the image is there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:27, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've re-added the image and given it a new caption akin to what I've written above, to better explain why it's in the article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 19:32, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I like that suggestion, @ReaderofthePack. —-Kbabej (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

OK with me David notMD (talk) 20:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Title

I believe this belongs at Winnie-the-Pooh: Blood and Honey, which is supported by IMDb and the poster shown. It would be a distinction between the public domain character and the one (without the hyphens) controlled by Disney. 128.151.71.7 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on this; thanks for bringing this up. A large majority of the sources do not use the hyphens, but if that's the official name, the page should likely be moved. --Kbabej (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done I believe you're right! IMDB, the poster, and the official trailer are all hyphenated. Moving now! --Kbabej (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Release date confusion

I feel like this is a topic that needs to be talked over more. For about the past week or so, the release date of this film has been frequently changed from November of this year to Feburary 2023. Ever since Jagged Edge Productions posted the "suspected" release date of Feburary 2023 on their Twitter page, the confusion has only increased from there. Personally, I am taking Twitter's side, as the production company that is helping Rhys Frake-Waterfield make the movie is literally saying that the film is releasing next year in 2023. If anyone disagrees with me, feel free to voice your concerns. 108.36.125.41 (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitter is not a reliable source and should not be used in articles. See WP:RSPTWITTER. Do you have a source for this release date elsewhere? —Kbabej (talk) 17:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Peter Pan: Nerverland Nightmare

Frake-Waterfield is planning on making a Peter Pan horror movie as well. MrWii000 (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Bambi: The Reckoning

Along with Peter Pan: Neverland Nightmare, Rhys Frake-Waterfield also annouced that he and Scott Jeffrey would be making a horror retelling of Bambi. 108.36.125.41 (talk) 20:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

New poster

Recently, Rhys Frake-Waterfield released a new poster for the film. What do you guys think? Should it replace the current? 108.36.125.41 (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Budget

The original source that Collider got "$15,000" from, is The Hollywood Reporter (noticed how it says Exclusive?). That source states, "While all eyes may currently be on Skinamarink as the microbudget horror film of the moment, with a box office approaching $2 million off a $15,000 budget, another movie is already breathing menacingly down its neck". They are talking about Skinamarink having a $15,000 budget and making $2 million at box office. This new report only says it is under $100,000. Thank you. Mike Allen 00:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes consensus

The Rotten Tomatoes consensus is clearly a pun (based on Pooh's famous line). Is it really worth having a short joke comment, even if it's by a reliable critic aggregator, in the critical reception? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 08:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Mexico vs. the United States

There's an HTML comment saying:

STOP! DO NOT ADD US RELEASE. THIS IS A UK FILM, SEE WP:FILMRELEASE

What difference is there between the United States and Mexico that makes it so that the Mexican release date can be in the article but the United States release date can't?? Georgia guy (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That it was released in Mexico before any other region, including the UK. Nardog (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That's why the shortcut WP:FILMRELEASE was added to the note that explains: Release dates should therefore be restricted to the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release, and the release date(s) in the country or countries that produced the film, excluding sneak previews or screenings. Mike Allen 14:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Untitled Jagged Edge Productions cinematic universe for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Untitled Jagged Edge Productions cinematic universe is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Jagged Edge Productions cinematic universe until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Miami Classroom Incident?

Should we include that a teacher accidentally showed the movie in a Miami classroom? It's on the news? HiGuys69420 (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Probably not. WP:NOTNEWS Mike Allen 21:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Use of the word "panned"

Because I have this page in my watchlist, I've noticed that over the past few months several users have tried to replace the phrase "The film received mostly negative reviews" with "The film was panned". This is not neutral language, and on Wikipedia we follow WP:NPOV so I would like to ask that anyone that wants to add the word "panned", please don't. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

British film and context of American copyright

On reading this article, I find it strange how there is such discussion about the laws on American copyright for a British film. I might be missing something obvious here, but isn't American copyright law usually irrelevant to a British film? Shouldn't there be some discussion of copyright in the country where it was filmed? (We're still within 70 years of A.A. Milne's death and British copyright usually lasts for 70 years after death) Were the film-makers just keen to distribute the film in the USA and make more money? Epa101 (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

While Winnie-the-Pooh is still copyrighted in the UK, the sources seem to indicate that the director was focusing on American copyright law. I imagine the reason it's even legal in the UK is because the film is also a parody so it falls under fair use. Unfortunately we can't really discuss this issue in the article because sources haven't covered it. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this question merits further discussion. Online discourse I've encountered around this film talks solely about it being public domain in the US and seems not to acknowledge that the copyright in Britain (and many other countries) remains until 2027. How this film got a UK release rather baffles me. If it came under fair dealing after all, does that not indicate that US public domain status - the central gimmick of the entire concept - was redundant? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Awakening Sleeping Beauty

Awakening Sleeping Beauty must be there... Marvelvsdcvscapcomvssega (talk) 08:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)