John Oliver answers my question about the Winnie the Pooh horror movie

Okay, it wasn’t my question that John Oliver answered. It wasn’t like I personally posed it to him or anything. But in season 10, episode 6 of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, which aired on April 2, he did answer a question I had about the Winnie the Pooh horror movie.

Except, I didn’t even know I had it. (Which would’ve made it hard for me to ask him about it then, right?) Rather, he addressed something that had been niggling around in the back of my brain: How were they able to turn Winnie the Pooh into a horror movie? Wasn’t that a copyright violation of some sort?

It would’ve been…but not anymore. But before we get into the specifics, let’s quickly familiarize ourselves with the movie.

A brief history of the Winnie the Pooh horror movie

At the start of this year, Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey made IMDB’s list of most anticipated movies of 2023.

The synopsis on the YouTube channel for Rotten Tomatoes Trailers laid out the premise like so:

"Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey follows Pooh and Piglet as they go on a rampage after Christopher Robin abandons them."

It released in select U.S. theaters on February 15…and flopped. Currently, it’s received a rating of 3.2 out of 10 on IMDB and a 4% Tomatometer score on Rotten Tomatoes. However, the Audience score on Rotten Tomatoes was 50%, and 58% of Google users indicated they liked it. So it does have a few fans.

But overall, nope. The Winnie the Pooh horror movie was a stinker.

Copyright expiration and the Winnie the Pooh horror movie

Which brings us back to how was it possible for anyone to turn Winnie the Pooh into a horror movie in the first place? Didn’t that violate or infringe upon copyright laws or something?

If I had been able to form that question, and if I’d read the Variety article about the interview with the movie’s director, Rhys Waterfield, I wouldn’t have needed John Oliver’s answer. I would’ve already known that the earliest Pooh stories by A. A. Milne are no longer protected under copyright. It’s since expired. Which means people no longer need permission to use it.

But John Oliver’s explanation was much more fun. And hilarious.

The main focus of Oliver’s episode examined the problems of solitary confinement, but he ended with addressing issues concerning intellectual property law. As he put it, “It’s the reason why your unlicensed Halloween costume of Oscar the Grouch is called something like ‘cranky trash pervert.'”

Then he went on to show part of the trailer for Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, without first stating what it was, just that “it has a somewhat unexpected villain.”

After that, it just got funnier. Here’s a snippet from the transcript of the episode where he riffs on the situation:

"Yes. Everything about that is disturbing, including that Winnie the Pooh in this movie looks like someone shaved and bleached the Grinch. Also, why does he have to be the bad guy? Any of the other characters would make much more sense as a killer. Piglet? Inferiority complex. Ticking time bomb. Tigger? Fast. Powerful. Unhinged. Rabbit? Twisted control freak. Eeyore? Don’t get me started. He’s been kicked around for decades. When Eeyore snaps, none of us are safe."

Piglet is actually Pooh’s killer accomplice in the movie. And the Variety article explained that while “Milne’s earliest stories are now out of copyright, Disney retains exclusive use of their interpretations of Pooh Bear and his friends.” Which explains some other things, including their attire in the movie and why it’s just Pooh and Piglet.

Disney added the iconic red shirt most of us who grew up with Pooh are familiar with. Same goes for Piglet’s pink bodysuit with the horizontal black pinstripes. It’s why Pooh’s in a lumberjack outfit and Piglet’s all in black in the horror movie.

And as far as Eeyore, Variety talked about a scene that showed his tombstone, but he’s still under copyright, so that’s why he’s not in it. Tigger’s still copyrighted too (insert the Tigger “woo-hoo-hoo-hooo” laugh here). He’s not even referenced in the movie at all. (But could he become the focus of a Winnie the Pooh horror movie sequel once he’s not under copyright restraints?)

Oliver hadn’t seen the movie, but it horrified him all the same. “I’m used to him being, like, a cute little bear in the woods, not a…not a criminal.”

He went on to add, “He’s an important role model for woodland bears, especially now, when they have so many really bad ones.” That’s when the poster for Cocaine Bear popped up next to him.

It was really funny, but also thought-provoking. Because the larger point he was trying to make was that Mickey Mouse may be next. In 2024, the copyright for the original Steamboat Willie version of Mickey expires.

Oliver wanted to stake his claim on that asset immediately, saying, “…he’s pretty closely associated with our brand now, too, and not just because I have a general vibe that screams ’95-year-old rat-faced idiot.'”

Which, as Oliver admitted, was tempting fate. In that regard, he may find himself dealing with a horror story of his own if Disney’s lawyers take exception to the route he ended the show with.

But for now, thanks to him, and Variety, the question I didn’t even know I had about the Winnie the Pooh horror movie has been answered.

Did you see the Winnie the Pooh horror movie? Did you wonder if it was violating copyright laws too? We’d love to know your thoughts. Share them in the comments!