Film Theory: This is Disney’s WORST Fear! (Winnie the Pooh)
Vložit
- čas přidán 24. 03. 2023
- SUBSCRIBE to Style Theory!
Be one of the first to subscribe to our NEW channel! ► bit.ly/styletheorysub
Can you imagine if your favorite, friendly Pooh Bear had a HORROR movie? Well, that is an actual reality now. But it’s NOT from the minds at Disney. So is this even legal? And could other Disney characters get their own horror movies? Oh Bother, we’re in for a good episode today!
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
🔽 Don’t Miss Out!
Get Your TheoryWear! ► theorywear.com/
Dive into the Reddit! ► / gametheorists
Need Royalty Free Music for your Content? Try Epidemic Sound.
Get Your 30 Day Free Trial Now ► share.epidemicsound.com/TheFil...
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
👀 Watch MORE Theories:
The Sins of Iron Man! ►► • Film Theory: Why Iron ...
Okay Marvel, It’s Time to PANIC! ►► • Film Theory: Okay Marv...
Batman’s FATAL Flaw! ►► • Film Theory: The Batma...
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
SUBSCRIBE to Film Theory!
www.youtube.com/@FilmTheory/?...
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Join Our Other CZcams Channels!
🕹️ @GameTheory
🍔 @FoodTheory
👔 @StyleTheorists
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Credits:
Writers: Matthew Patrick and Forrest Lee
Editors: Alex "Sedge" Sedgwick, Jerika (NekoOnigiri), and Brandon_n_motion
Assistant Editor: AlyssaBeCrazy
Sound Designer: Yosi Berman
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
#Disney #WinniethePooh #WinnieThePoohBloodAndHoney #PoohBear #BloodandHoney #Horror #HorrorStory #Copyright #Trademark #Theory #FilmTheory #Matpat - Krátké a kreslené filmy
Matpat literally taught me more about public domain, copyright and trademarks, than any of my schools could.
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
I've noticed the addition of the Steamboat Willie animation into the Disney logo, but I always thought it was just a fun reference and callback to the origins of the company, a way to honor their heritage. I never realized that it was a skeezy way to dodge copyright law. That kinda makes me feel bad.
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
@@kingofsomething3250 The final form of capitalism, where everything is controlled by capital
Gotta give it to Disney - Trademarking literal frames of animation was genius
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
If you want to distinguish Mickey, just take the buttons off his pants, or put four buttons instead of two. Make the tips of his shoes flatter or pointier or whatever. They never change Mickey’s clothes so if you mix up the clothes it isn’t Disney’s Mickey anymore. Their Mickey only ever has the single outfit. Or just stick to fanfics and fan art and upload them to FanFiction or DeviantArt.
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.
Disney sued and threatened a childrens hospital for having a peter pan themed room/playcenter to help the kids cheer up and socialize even though they were using it based on public domain and werent even using the disney characters.
Its nice seeing someone use the public domain to scare disney like this
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
from chuck e cheese to winnie the pooh, this man can make ANYTHING full of lore and even eviller than it should ever be. thanks mat.
@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.
This might actually explain why they're doing all these live action remakes. A means to maintain rights to their versions of these characters.
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 🙎
I love how matpat & team have made these videos impossible for Disney to copyright claim unless they want to make it canon that their mascot is a deranged evil kidnapping serial killer.
@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.
I love how mat manages to stay consistent with all his channels
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
Ok, we NEED a stop motion animated adaptation of the original Winnie the pooh
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
This reminds me of Hasbro's relationship with the word 'transform'. You'll notice in most of the recent toy packaging and instructions, they advertise that the figure "converts in X number of steps" because if they overuse the word 'transform' it will become generic and allow other companies to sell 'transformers' toys instead if 'transforming robot toys'
Thanks matpat you've really made me understand about copyrights, trademarks and the public domain. I'm beginning to see how things work just right after you explained them
Watching a simple theory?
Well jokes on you, you just learned how the copyright and trademarks work!
Someone is 100% going to make a horror movie based on all of the Disney characters 😂
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
A horror movie with Mickey Mouse would be quite unique
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 watched this flick today and I am dumbfounded and impressed it exists. Kudos to the filmmakers, and I hope there's a sequel with Tigger, because that guy would be a terrifying adversary!
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
A Peter Pan horror room actually makes sense because Peter Pan is arguably the villain there. Captain Hook may not be fully innocent, but Peter Pan isn't much better.
I don’t know why, but I absolutely love it when the theorist channels start talking about copyright, trademarks, and the public domain and seeing the lengths companies are willing to go to keep their IPs in their control.
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
I’m not gonna lie, ‘Bambi: The Reckoning’ made me laugh so hard I had to pause the video in order to collect myself. I had heard there may be a Bambi horror movie, so that in and of itself didn’t shock me. For some reason, the title just caught me by surprise and absolutely sent me
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
I love the Kingdom Hearts references in this video. Great job MattPat, never thought you could do that! Combined two of my favorite worlds 🥹🥹
11:10 matpat turned into kermit while explain ING copyright lmao
Not Only the Original Mickey will be in the Public Domain, people forget about the original Minnie and Pete will also too.
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
disney’s worst fear is the kung fu panda franchise, it’s going to put disney out of business
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
THE MOUSE IS OURS!
I am very scared for Donald Duck’s copyright time to run out but... I WAS thinking about making a parody news program starring him, so... yeah.
The Peter Pan horror... yeah that one already exists in literary form. The book is called Lost Boy. And while it may not appear as a horror (and I would agree that it can be discussed whether it's horror or not) but once you start to think about it as a backstory, it becomes a bit chilling.
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
Legal loopholes also existed with the mean one, a horror adaptation of how the Grinch stole Christmas. The character was simply never referred to as "the Grinch, whoville was named "newville", Cindy loohoo was named "Cindy you know who" among many other examples. And that film was still made much before the Grinch came to public domain.
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.
Boy oh boy, ain't this aged so well.
I've been binge watching every theory channel ever since I stopped 3 months ago due to exams. I'm watching in the toilet and anywhere possible you can imagine. I'm loving this
To be fair, Reimagining characters without their iconogrophy sounds like a great way to get to the core of a character in creative ways.
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
@@vintagebunnie Goddammit!
@@mikethegoofirst time getting copyrighted huh?
People have always been doing horror things with beloved characters. Worst fear for companies is when it becomes legal and can go on the big screen: public domain
12:01 There is no way Disney can copyright Darth Vader breathing. It is literally just SCUBA gear noises.
One of the worst thing I've seen from these kind of laws is that the AFL (Australian Football Legue) (I'm Aussie) wants to start an official AFL team for Tasmania, but they can't call themselves the 'Tassie/Tasmanian Devils, an Aussie animal, and their state animal, because Warner Brothers owns the trademark to the name 'Tasmanian Devil', and they're currently in the middle of a lengthy legal battle for the rights for the name.
usually all this legal jargon doesn't hold my attention but wow, i didn't realize copyright and trademark laws were so blooming specific. thanks for presenting it all in an interesting way, matpat. i have a feeling this video is going to be pretty handy for a lot of people over the next few years.
Been a while since we’ve heard the Mickey Mouse voice over here. Still just as good as always :)
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.
Me watching this in 2024 🤠👍
Same lol
SAME
Same 😅
I actually have a good pitch for a steam boat Willie game ok so
It’s starts on steamboat Willie cutscene yk when he’s whistleing and then Mickey mouse (steam boat Willie) sinks down in ink
And he sinks back up in a ware house kind of with these inky guys kind of like the lost from bendy and the ink machine and the lost one explains that If he doesn’t beat the evil Pete (from steamboat Willie who also escaped) he will be forgotten so it’s up to them to stop him (ps it would be like a paper Mario and Cuphead game
Ok now I'm officially convinced he can turn anything into a theory.
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!!!
I think some good works could come out of this. Imagine a Winnie the Pooh or Mickey Mouse movie where instead of a edgy horror bloodbath there are more adult and deep themes that Disney isn't brave enough to depict. Something like Del Toro's Pinocchio but with disney characters.
The fact that they necessarily have to distance themselves from the modern depictions of these characters to avoid copyright could ironically become an advantage instead of a limitation.
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.
Matpat is the only person who can convince me I’m a crayon and I’d believe it wholeheartedly.
6:31
The most unrealistic part of the video
You know they didn't give them a free trip to Disney world
Maybe a 13% discount
Matt actually had such a good opportunity to use the the Fine bros “react” trademark attempt to help explain why you can’t trademark ideas like “theory” 😂
Trademark* you said the wrong term.
@@mr_indie_fan correction taken 🫡
Ironically I kept telling my friends "someone should turn Disknee movies into horror movies" can't believe someone actually did that LMAO
6:00
We can assure Game Freak, Nintendo, and Sega are gonna be riding THAT for a LONG TIME
I know he was joking about “Copyright Theory” but fr this is stuff I need to know as a creator, please make more of this!
I wanted to print out a book of music for the clarinet, and so I looked up a list of public domain music, believing it would be all classical stuff. But I was surprised to see names like Cole Porter, Irving Berlin, Harold Arlen...I hadn't realized some of the great songs that are now in the public domain.
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.
Omg i actually need to thank matpat for this. I thought i would be confused asf while he was talking about copyright and trademark laws, but its actually far from it. Seriously, Matt has a strange gift to explain things so well. Thank you for teaching me and keeping me entertained in the process. Peace.
You should do regular Copyright Theory videos, you seem really skilled at making them and they're very interesting.
Thanks for the vids Mattpat
This theory was legit scarier than the actual movie
Both copyrights and trademarks have big aspects that Matpat neglected here. For copyright, there's the aspect of "mise-en-scene" (which is similar but not quite the same as the theatre meaning). Basically, only aspects of a work that are sufficiently "expressive" and "original" can be copyrighted, so if something is too mundane or expected, it's not included. This could mean that Superman's other abilities count as long as they're the ones that superheroes tend to have (like flight). There's also the part where new versions of Superman would still get to own new elements that are themselves original (like if you decided that Superman now gets to revive the dead or something). For trademarks, there's both the issue of trademark erosion (when a trademark becomes the generic form for something and thus unable to be a trademark) and whether the use is relevant to the actual purpose of the trademark to begin with. I suspect the steamboat willy frames won't actually infringe unless used in thumbnails, since they don't actually work to identify a source if they're in the middle of an animation.
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.
Might not be bad for some properties where the people in charge clearly won't listen to fan feedback or desire. Fan-based versions of our favorite characters that do them more justice than the original could also be a thing.
if they make a tigger horror movie, i hope they stay lore consistent and include the "bones made of springs" thing that he sings about in the show. i'm not sure if it was in the books though...
I like the idea of the original winnie just walking in the public domain, only to stumble into this movie by accident after taking a shady path, and accidentally meet the slasher. "Oh bother, do you need help cleaning off that jam?"
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 :)
it would be interesting to see a follow up episode of this talking about how companies can lose even their trademark because the wording itself becomes common use. I heard something along the lines of Kleenex does not want their name being used interchangeably with a tissue like, "can you pass me a Kleenex" and really you are just asking for any type of tissue paper. When a company's word is used for the generic meaning of that word those companies can lose the rights to that word itself. If we started using "mickey" to refer to every mouse we see I wonder if the same would be true.
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).
I just love your videos. I'm playing some games and listening to either The Film Theorist, The Game Theorist or The Food Theorist
2:43 He is now part of the public domain
learned about this from someone talking about how harry potter would have gone into the public domain with some of those older laws, but it’s good to see matt spreading the info to a wider audience here. gah, i just wish people were allowed to be creative and not be afraid of the stupid mega corporations like disney and WB.
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
Doesn't surprise me that Peter Pan is one of the ones next up to become a horror movie, depending on how you look at the original work it practically is close to being one already and probably would require surprisingly little adjustment to become full-on horror. Peter Pan just as an individual is just creepy.
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)
I could still see something. Steamboat Willie being useful specifically on CZcams for those people that had to change the name like it never showed up on screen but like when they were telling the story like them just being able to say it without having to change or make a slight altercation would probably be incredibly useful
Back here with Steamboat Willie being used for every horror game am low budget horror movie
As someone who was nicknamed Winnie the Pooh as a small child (due to my name being somewhat similar), I cannot tell you how weird this is. Even weirder than it is for everyone else.
😢
How does that give you a status to say how weird this is, its not even weird? You just hear the name and what?
This is way off topic, but I'd love to see a theory on Osmosis Jones, and what kind of real world virus that Thrax could be representing. I think the movie is kind of hinting at Thrax being scarlet fever, given that Frank's symptoms start with a sore throat, the other germs are calling him, "muerte rojo" or Red Death, and he seems to be humming Peggy Lee's "Fever" in one scene. The problem with that theory being that he's referred to as a virus, and scarlet fever is a bacteria. So what virus looks like the common cold, and attacks DNA like Thrax does in the movie? Help! The internet needs Dr. Matpat, M.D.
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
12:46 Fun fact the hyphen in Spider-Man's name was inserted because Stan Lee felt that he could get into legal troubles with DC without it because both Superman and Spider-Man's names started with S and ended with man.
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'm here from danno
Same
Me to
We all are
Who is the
*danno
8:29 I don't think Disney could claim copyright over a public domain character wearing a specific coloured shirt.
Same way Holmes's author couldn't sue someone for a warm, caring version of Sherlock.
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
1:48 I’m in the bathroom right now and that joke made me more scared than the movie did
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
Dude I was literally on the toilet when he said "you, without your pants on"
Me and my friend went to see this, and it was… interesting to say the least. It was mostly just gore and brutal death scenes. The acting and plot was horrible, but the murder scenes were traumatizing-
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.
Not gonna lie, I would love to see if an Indie studio was able to make a fascinating reimagining of Batman, based purely on his golden age incarnation.
That is the hero we probably don’t deserve or need but when I would definitely like to see.
(Also I’m pretty sure they would have to call it something like “The Gothic Adventures of the Mysterious Bat-Man” or something like that if they want to sneak around trademark.$
Trademarks are actually even weirder than what was gone into in this video. You can actually outright use names of characters. Batman, Superman, ect. as they are names. You can't trademark a name, but the iconarary around it. The issue being, they could still threaten the lawsuit around that, and it's not easy to fight the big guys, but it's not illegal to use their names.
I actually was wondering if you were going to tackle this Theory because I was looking into it myself when I was going back explaining to someone about how Disney constantly changed copyright law to protect their ownership of Mickey Mouse. Happy to see you address it!!!
Concepts can't be copyrighted, as you said. So superman's abilities aren't under copyright. He can fly as soon as soon as his name and likeness are freed up.
17:25 that's my exact thoughts
I think Disney's biggest fear is losing 💰💰💰
@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.
2:48 South Park clip that I liked how you used
9:06 And the kangaroos?
I like how trademarks only work in the country of origin and sites online, but if you made a cafe or shop in an other country and name it disney that isn't shown on the internet they can't do anything about it, unless I'm somehow wrong with that deduction of how trademarks works.
Reminded me of Phantom of the Opera, where everyone is writing their own Phantom story, but taking place after the story is said is done or changing part of the ending for our own amusement. Including a different version of Phantom of the Opera or beginning origin story.
The movie intro in that creepy drawing form was so amazing. Made you feel bad for them and it kinda made me feel like it would have worked as a short film 🤷🏾♂️
Definitely would've been better as a short film.
@@rahbeeuh Yes I agree
The thumbnail terrified me
I'm glad it wasn't nighttime
Please do a vid on the Monument Mythos! #2
I’m watching this 4 days after Mickey Mouse was entered the public domain and there are already horror movies and games on Mickey Mouse
12:51 Superman? Nah, this is my original character, Superiorman.
Superior Man is a real version of Superman. Well, kinda.
If Sherlock Holmes is in the public domain, someone could legally publish johnlock fanfic
Depends it would have to be based off the original Conan Doyle
Awesome theory and this is a nice video to watch today :]
Matpat? How did you know that I wasn't wearing any pants?
This explains so much how Brightburn became a “Superman” villain origin story and they still were able to make it without problems. It wasn’t the best movie but at least I know how they were able to make it. Thank you Film Theory! Learning a new thing every week!
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.
Winnie the pooh getting a horror movie is wild
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
4:35 If only this video existed before the whole REACT copyright thing some years ago XD
Matpat: you yes you without your pants on
Me on the toilet: how did he know HOW DID HE KNOW!?!?!?!?
I appreciate the companies bravery to make a horror movie all about Xi Jinpin-I mean Winnie the Pooh.
-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!
9:35 Surprised MatPat didn’t mention Brightburn considering it’s basically a horror style retelling of a childhood Superman.
ngl i found this movie so funny and enjoyed it for exactly that. The whole cinema was brought together as we all laughed and commented as the movie went on. Really good memory
That description of a potential real life mermaid reminds me of the ones from Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. They were beautiful but they could look monstrous and the had really loud shrieks (if I remember correctly)
I went over these copyright issues during my education training, and thankfully the general upshot for teachers is that educators have wide latitude to use copyrighted material with proper credit.
16:37 That animation is most likely NOT the original animation from Steamboat Willie, because it should be followed by Mickey pulling the strings for the boat whistles right after he has finished whistling. That was not included in the new logo, so it must've been new animation, but in the style of the original.🤔
It is 2024 🤗
Yay
Exactly
Thank god he covered why tiger wasn't in the film. I was going insane 😂
i think video game developers need to keep an eye out on these domains opening up.
being able to make collabs without the years of communicating towards how the collaboration works out could be really good for some games.
I swear I heard matpat's voice change @11:20 . Is anyone else noticing this? For two theories now I heard a change. it's slight, but it's there. I don't think it's bad or anything like that, just something I noticed. So be aware if Mat talks more about AI voice scripts, I think he's already using them and testing the waters. I see you, Matt.
Ya, I noticed it two. You're not crazy 😅
But I just thought that many he had gotten sick when he was recording these scripts and it wasn't extreme enough to warrant someone else do them.
The difference between voices sounds like his voice got more snuffled, I think he might have recorded two halves of the video at different times, and got sick somewhere between those two halves
I thought I was going crazy as I didn't see anyone else say anything until I found this comment. Glad it's not in my head
That legal mousetrap visual gag was really good. Not only because the mouse itself is the bait on the trap, but triggering the trap would cause a gavel to slam down on your hand. Just a very clean representation.
HOW DOES HE KNOWS I AM NOT USING PANTS?!?!?