by Tdarcos » Tue Mar 28, 2023 1:21 am
Flack wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:31 pm
Minutes after the original source material entered the public domain,
It may seem that rushed, but according to the film's Wikipdia page, it was four months later.
Flack wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:31 pmproduction began on Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey.
Quote Pooh, "Oh bother."
Flack wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:31 pm
According to the film, the once friendly animals ... turned ... into feral killing machines with a hatred for all humanity, especially one Christopher Robin.
"A dragon lives forever, but not so little boys...
One gray night it happened, Jackie Paper came no more
And Puff, that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar ...
Without his lifelong friend, Puff could not be brave
So Puff, that mighty dragon, sadly slipped into his cave."
- Peter, Paul, and Mary,
Puff, the Magic Dragon
Basically there are three ways you can go in explaining the end of a dream, story, or a situation (like the final episode of a multi-year TV series, or a well known book series), (1) you can have everything wind down/collapse (as is done in
Puff the Magic Dragon, "St. Elsewhere," "Wizard of Oz," or the last episode of
Newhart), (2) just end while the story continues (
Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, "Cheers," "The Sopranos," most films), or (3) you can go off on a wild tangent (the fact I can't think of any examples shows how rare this technique works well enough to be memorable). It appears this film chose the latter path.
It is possible to do this well, but it is very difficult, because, first, you have to break the audience's expectation of what they figure the characters would do, and second, you have to keep up the audience's willing suspension of disbelief that happens when a good story comes together. Again, this can be done well, but you have to know what you are doing. It is clearly obvious, they did not. I would have said i suspected this was the case, until I was convinced when I discovered this film was made, not on a small budget, but a miniscule amount, practically nothing, i.e. $100,000. This means there is very little money for a writer, producer, or director (let alone cast, crew, or shooting expenses) and it shows.
I've said you can get a reasonably watchable film even though the director has very little experience and you have nothing but unknown actors with little to no experience (John Carpenter did this very well when he and two friends financed the making of the gripping psychological thriller
Assault on Precinct 13 out of their own pockets.) But the writing has to be there first. Reasonable performances and at least competent direction can make a good film out of a strong script, but start with bad writing and even a skilled director and superb acting won't turn it away from becoming a bad movie, any more than a usable building can be constructed on a foundation of quicksand. But in this case, the resources just weren't there, so the story wasn't there, and, as you noticed, it shows.
Flack wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:31 pm
Not long thereafter we meet a group of college-aged girls having a fun-filled weekend in those same woods. It doesn't take long for Pooh and Piglet to sniff out these uninvited guests and have them for dinner... and I don't mean as guests.
As Hannibal Lecter said over the phone to Agent Starling at the end of
Silence of the Lambs: I have to go, Clarise. I'm having an old friend over for dinner.
Flack wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:31 pm
Only one of the girls has any sort of back story, and they're all interchangeable. Even if you wanted to tell them apart, you couldn't.
There. There's their weakness. The audience is given no reason to care about what happens to the people in the movie. We can't admire the bad guy, (as is done in
Die Hard) and we have no empathy for the victims (as
Die Hard also does, and is standard fare that most horror films offer us), so why should we care about anyone shown? So what can we watch the film for? Who or what can we root for? The scenery?
Flack wrote: Mon Mar 27, 2023 8:31 pm
Then again, that's not who the audience is rooting for. ... [long description of] torture porn. The film desperately could have used more humor and camp and a little less blood; I doubt that's what we'll get in the sequel, which is already being teased with a 2024 release date.
I once said this, that if you can make films cheap enough, with the potential outlets available (which then was theatrical release and as a minor film for a TV network or local stations) you could make money even if they weren't very good. The producers of this film have discovered this since they made back 40x their initial investment (minus distribution costs). Absent some compelling reason not to, obviously a sequel has to be forthcoming, consodering how successful this film was.
[quote=Flack post_id=136156 time=1679974277 user_id=840]
Minutes after the original source material entered the public domain,[/quote]
It may seem that rushed, but according to the film's Wikipdia page, it was four months later.
[quote=Flack post_id=136156 time=1679974277 user_id=840]production began on Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey. [/quote]
Quote Pooh, "Oh bother."
[quote=Flack post_id=136156 time=1679974277 user_id=840]
According to the film, the once friendly animals ... turned ... into feral killing machines with a hatred for all humanity, especially one Christopher Robin.[/quote]
"A dragon lives forever, but not so little boys...
One gray night it happened, Jackie Paper came no more
And Puff, that mighty dragon, he ceased his fearless roar ...
Without his lifelong friend, Puff could not be brave
So Puff, that mighty dragon, sadly slipped into his cave."
- Peter, Paul, and Mary, [i]Puff, the Magic Dragon[/i]
Basically there are three ways you can go in explaining the end of a dream, story, or a situation (like the final episode of a multi-year TV series, or a well known book series), (1) you can have everything wind down/collapse (as is done in [i]Puff the Magic Dragon[/i], "St. Elsewhere," "Wizard of Oz," or the last episode of [i]Newhart[/i]), (2) just end while the story continues ([i]Star Trek: Deep Space Nine[/i], "Cheers," "The Sopranos," most films), or (3) you can go off on a wild tangent (the fact I can't think of any examples shows how rare this technique works well enough to be memorable). It appears this film chose the latter path.
It is possible to do this well, but it is very difficult, because, first, you have to break the audience's expectation of what they figure the characters would do, and second, you have to keep up the audience's willing suspension of disbelief that happens when a good story comes together. Again, this can be done well, but you have to know what you are doing. It is clearly obvious, they did not. I would have said i suspected this was the case, until I was convinced when I discovered this film was made, not on a small budget, but a miniscule amount, practically nothing, i.e. $100,000. This means there is very little money for a writer, producer, or director (let alone cast, crew, or shooting expenses) and it shows.
I've said you can get a reasonably watchable film even though the director has very little experience and you have nothing but unknown actors with little to no experience (John Carpenter did this very well when he and two friends financed the making of the gripping psychological thriller [i]Assault on Precinct 13[/i] out of their own pockets.) But the writing has to be there first. Reasonable performances and at least competent direction can make a good film out of a strong script, but start with bad writing and even a skilled director and superb acting won't turn it away from becoming a bad movie, any more than a usable building can be constructed on a foundation of quicksand. But in this case, the resources just weren't there, so the story wasn't there, and, as you noticed, it shows.
[quote=Flack post_id=136156 time=1679974277 user_id=840]
Not long thereafter we meet a group of college-aged girls having a fun-filled weekend in those same woods. It doesn't take long for Pooh and Piglet to sniff out these uninvited guests and have them for dinner... and I don't mean as guests. [/quote]
As Hannibal Lecter said over the phone to Agent Starling at the end of [i]Silence of the Lambs[/i]: I have to go, Clarise. I'm having an old friend over for dinner.
[quote=Flack post_id=136156 time=1679974277 user_id=840]
Only one of the girls has any sort of back story, and they're all interchangeable. Even if you wanted to tell them apart, you couldn't. [/quote]
There. There's their weakness. The audience is given no reason to care about what happens to the people in the movie. We can't admire the bad guy, (as is done in [i]Die Hard[/i]) and we have no empathy for the victims (as [i]Die Hard[/i] also does, and is standard fare that most horror films offer us), so why should we care about anyone shown? So what can we watch the film for? Who or what can we root for? The scenery?
[quote=Flack post_id=136156 time=1679974277 user_id=840]
Then again, that's not who the audience is rooting for. ... [long description of] torture porn. The film desperately could have used more humor and camp and a little less blood; I doubt that's what we'll get in the sequel, which is already being teased with a 2024 release date.
[/quote]
I once said this, that if you can make films cheap enough, with the potential outlets available (which then was theatrical release and as a minor film for a TV network or local stations) you could make money even if they weren't very good. The producers of this film have discovered this since they made back 40x their initial investment (minus distribution costs). Absent some compelling reason not to, obviously a sequel has to be forthcoming, consodering how successful this film was.